The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Just before we start, I want to remind members that the chirping you hear, we are not being invaded by birds, but we have a malfunction with the alarm system. So, you may hear that for the next little while, while the maintenance people are going to fix it. That chirping, do not be alarmed, we do not have to leave the building. So, just have a little bit of patience for about half an hour while that is being fixed.

There have been a few changes since we left here in June, and I want to welcome everybody back to the continuation of this session of the House of Assembly. I want to use this as the first opportunity we have as a Legislature to welcome our new Clerk, formally, sitting at the Table for the first time. Ms Barnes, as you know, was appointed in the spring, and this is her first time sitting at the Table and presiding over this session of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have assured her that you will welcome her and will not be very challenging during this pre-Christmas session.

We also want to be able to welcome to our Assembly two new Pages: Shelby Marshall and Ryan Steeves, both Memorial University students who will be joining us for the first time as our two new Pages. Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Marie Hogan and Caitlyn Baikie are returning from the last session as well. You might recall them; they were here in the spring. Welcome back to you two as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They too are continuing their studies at Memorial University.

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we will have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's East; and the Member for the District of St. John's South.

The Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I would like to pay tribute to History Professor Harry Paul who, along with four siblings, was raised in Bonavista by mother, Olive Paul. He attended Memorial University in 1949, receiving the first ever provincial Centenary Scholarship for the District of Bonavista South. After completing his B.A. in History, Mr. Paul went to Columbia University of New York to complete his Ph.D. in French History.

Harry spent the rest of his career teaching at the University of Florida. Fluent in French, Mr. Paul regularly travelled to France, gathering research on the history of science and religion to write a number of successful novels. He is the renowned author for works such as Henri De Rothschild: Medicine and Theater.

Harry's books are used through colleges worldwide as part of their academic curriculum and are reviewed in a number of journals such as the France Review, the British Society for Literature and Science, and the Chicago Journal.

Sadly, Mr. Paul passed away in October at the age of seventy-nine.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in honouring Mr. Paul for his significant accomplishments and contributions to the academic world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to recognize two outstanding community leaders who I had the pleasure to present the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal earlier this fall: Mr. Wilbur Sparkes of Bay Roberts and Mrs. Evelyn Adams of Upper Island Cove.

Mr. Sparkes was the Mayor of the Town of Bay Roberts for twenty-four consecutive years and served thirty years on various councils. He is a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Hall of Fame, the Baccalieu Trail Hall of Fame, and has served on numerous organizations within the town. He is a retired educator who spent the majority of his thirty-year career in administration.

Mrs. Adams, the deputy mayor, has served her community for twelve years on council. When I inquired what else Evelyn was involved in, people said it was easier to say what Evelyn was not. She is active with the town's recreation committee, St. Peter's Church, and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Committee in particular.

Both individuals have given their lives to the volunteer service of others and the advancements of their communities within Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these two outstanding individuals on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to salute a man who is a tireless advocate of better support for those living with mental health illnesses, and who has been outspoken on the need to include assistive supplies under our provincial pharmacare program.

Edward Sawdon takes every opportunity to educate the public about the realities faced by people living with physical disabilities and mental illness. He uses his own experiences to advocate for improvements to the provincial and national health care systems.

Edward serves on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Mental Health Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Pottle Centre, as well as being a member of several other related groups.

For his tireless advocacy work, Edward has received several Volunteer of the Year awards.

He was most recently the winner of the 2012 Renaissance Great Comeback Award for Atlantic Canada, ConvaTec Canada, which recognizes people who have made significant achievements in their lives following ostomy surgery, have made a meaningful contribution to the community or to others around them, and who have contributed to eliminating prejudicial misconceptions relating to people with ostomies.

I ask all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating Edward Sawdon for receiving the Great Comeback Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Community Readiness for People with Disabilities, an innovative organization that promotes inclusion in my district.

Founded in 2010 by people who saw the need in our region for people with disabilities to have the opportunity to meet, socialize, and simply have the same opportunities and experiences as everyone else. The group started with twelve clients; today, there are twenty-two regularly attending their sessions.

These sessions can be almost anything: from making a craft, to a cooking session, to a field trip, or to an employment awareness day. It may be hard to imagine the level of social isolation a person with a disability might have to live with, in a district of small communities with no public transit, but I can assure you that Community Readiness has made an incredible difference.

Just a few weeks ago, Community Readiness was honoured by the Coalition for People with Disabilities with their Organization Inclusion Award. I was very pleased to present them with their award on behalf of the coalition, and to celebrate with the group and their clients after the presentation. I am even more pleased that Community Readiness continues to thrive in my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long-time volunteer in my district who I was able to surprise with a Diamond Jubilee Medal in September.

Ron Day has been volunteering with the Community Sector Council, formerly, the Community Services Council, since 1997. He has been a one-man red tape cutter ever since.

Ron is a social worker with a master's degree from Dalhousie University. He spent his career working for the provincial government and through those decades he developed an incredible knowledge about support programs and government policies. On retirement, wanting to ensure the people who are eligible for Income Support programs and services had access to complete information and understood their entitlements, he brought his skills to the CSC to develop and deliver the Public Access program.

Through his own selfish dedication Mr. Day has helped thousands of individuals and families navigate through income and social support services. He responds to more than 1,000 calls a year, and that is just about 15,000 calls since he started volunteering.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Ron Day for his almost fifteen years of volunteer service with the Community Services Council and congratulations on his Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House and the general public to keep Anthony Maher in their thoughts and prayers as he recovers from an accident in Montreal. Anthony is from Shea Heights and is studying law at McGill University and has served as a Page in the House of Commons.

There is a fundraiser to help Anthony's family with their unexpected expenses so they can focus on being with Anthony during the coming weeks and months. Anyone interested can visit the VOCM Web site for more information.

What he needs now, and his family – I spoke to his mother, Georgina – they are asking that people at home pray for Anthony. I am asking all members of the House to keep him in their thoughts and prayers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, today I announced the provincial consultations around bullying, harassment, and intimidation of students will begin later this week, with our first focus group session to be held with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House earlier this year and committed to consulting with groups and individuals who have insight, expertise, and front-line experience with issues around bullying before making any major changes to policy or legislation. At that time, we were awaiting an independent consultant's evaluation of our existing Safe and Caring Schools Policy. We had also established a provincial committee to draft a definition of bullying, a template for the Code of Conduct, and a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Protocol which outlines a clear, consistent way in which bullying incidents are documented – I think you are going to try to get that word in, Mr. Speaker – investigated, and handled at the school level. We are now ready to bring those documents to our focus groups, and to the public at large, for input and feedback.

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of these consultations will involve focus group sessions with target audiences such as the Federation of School Councils, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, school district personnel, principals, teachers, school chairs, and parent representatives, as well as intermediate and high school students, among others.

The second is designed to encourage input and feedback from any and all interested groups or individuals. With an issue like this, with such widespread implications, we are determined to hear from as many people as possible, especially students and parents who are most affected by bullying behaviours. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are posting consultation materials on-line and encouraging all interested groups, agencies, and individuals to offer their commitment, comments, and suggestions. I can assure you all responses will be considered in determining what changes will be made.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the investments that the provincial government has made in supporting Safe and Caring Schools initiatives, professional development for school personnel, and the many resources provided for teachers, students, and parents to promote safe and caring environments in our schools, in our homes, and in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, nearly seven years ago this government introduced the Safe and Caring Schools Policy and almost a year ago they asked a consultant to look at it. They waited six years to see how it was doing.

Mr. Speaker, if you planted a tree you would not wait six years to see how it was doing; it is an absolute, unmitigated failure. The school administrator is generally aware of the policy and understood its general intent, although not all teachers have read the document. There was little reference to the importance of the policy in relation to enabling safe and caring environments for teachers and students. It was not seen as a foundation of basic schooling. The SCS policy implementation and initiatives should be a core responsibility of an identified staff person at each district level, not simply an add-on.

This is the government's own consultant. The consultant went on to say districts do not have a specific Safe and Caring Schools action plan, although one stated it has a draft action plan in progress six years later. It would seem prudent – the recommendation was – for districts to have a defined Safe and Caring Schools action plan outlining their key areas of focus and projected activities for the year. This will allow district administrators and all other staff to more easily see opportunities for a collaborative activity.

Mr. Speaker, the intention may be good, and the government has put $1.25 million for the last six years – $7.5 million – into this program for no results. It is time that the government took this issue seriously instead of making press releases and RFPs and announcements and feel-good statements, everything from baby blankets onward. This is just not good enough. The minister should look into this and actually do something instead of just talking.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am happy to hear that these consultations are finally going to get underway after a fairly lengthy delay. I agree with the minister, consultations in this regard are indeed very important. We all want to ensure that our children get the best education possible in the safest possible environment. If we need to change the Schools Act to do that, then let us do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to highlight the many ongoing positive developments in our Province's aquaculture industry.

Since 2006, aquaculture has grown in value from just over $52 million to $120 million in 2011. The industry is on course to again experience growth in 2012. The tremendous success we have seen can be attributed to many things, but primarily to the commitment of our people and the companies they work for.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Coast of Bays region for the first time as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. What I experienced was astounding: almost 100 per cent employment and communities that have been given a new lease on life.

During my visit, I had the privilege of announcing $5 million for Gray Aqua Group Limited. The funding will support the company in growing its farming operation from 4,000 metric tonnes to 16,000 metric tonnes annually. This is extremely positive news for the industry.

In addition, through the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, our government provided a $125,000 term loan to Silk Stevens, an aquaculture service company that will be establishing an office in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Finally, we recently announced $1 million for an expansion to a biosecurity wharf in Pool's Cove, where larger boats would dock to deliver the growing amounts of feed that are required for the industry.

The impact of this industry is not only being felt on our South Coast and the Coast of Bays region, but it is also expanding to other areas of our Province at a rapid pace. This is directly associated with the industry's confidence, the quality of fish it is producing, global demand for farmed salmon, and undoubtedly our commitment as a government to foster growth and development.

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned over the years is that in order for this industry to be sustainable, it needs to be fostered and managed properly. For this reason, our government began to invest heavily and establish strong policies and procedures right from the beginning. Today, we have five companies that are doing very well. We have over 1,000 people who are working full time. We have the most stringent and effective biosecurity protocols in place of any jurisdiction in the world, all augmented by a world-class Centre for Aquaculture Heath and Development which is run by the most qualified of staff.

This is a great success story for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, a success story for our government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy, something I neglected to do with the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, three years ago the federal government commissioned Justice Cohen to do a report on aquaculture in British Columbia. That report, after three years, was issued last month – 1,100 pages long – and it says: Stop open-net aquaculture in the ocean, before you destroy all of your fish.

Mr. Speaker, Norway has had to disinfect all of its rivers, kill everything in its rivers, and reintroduce its wild salmon because of a parasite. Scotland has lost most of its wild salmon. Closer to home and more recently, Loblaws has committed to work with the World Wildlife Federation to sell only sustainably growing seafood.

This is not open-net aquaculture. It is not sustainable. It is not sustainable because it destroys the environment. It destroys the pristine waters that we have around our Province. We are one of the last locations with the largest amount of wild salmon in the world, yet this government will go to an operator who, later this year, had to destroy nearly 500,000 salmon and now will pay them to increase their production from 4,000 tons to 16,000 tons – a 400 per cent increase in output.

We are not going bravely into the future. We are going stupidly into the past, subsidized by taxpayers' dollars.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I spent some time this summer on the South Coast talking to people in the industry, and the industry is certainly growing and improving the local economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I caution the minister, though, to watch for growing pains; it is a pity the biosecure wharf for Pool's Cove was not built earlier, because biosecurity still plagues the industry.

It is time for the aquaculture plan to be reviewed. It was done in 2000. It is twelve years later. We have seen a lot of growth in the industry since then. I am also concerned that the department is not focusing on the wild capture fishery.

Where is the infrastructure for this vital sustainable resource?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, by leave.

Does the member have leave?

No leave.

Ministers' Statements.

The hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Normally the Speaker gets advance notice of ministers' statements.

MS JOHNSON: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 16, I had the pleasure of launching a new multimedia campaign called Foster a Future… Foster a Child Today. This new campaign has been developed to address the critical shortage of foster homes throughout our Province.

The launch was attended by board members and foster parents with the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, which was so fitting given the integral role they play in the lives of our most vulnerable children and youth. I am delighted to say that we worked closely with the association to develop this campaign as well as our continuum of care strategy that was announced earlier this year. Republic of Doyle's Allan Hawco, who is featured in both our television and radio advertisements, also joined us for the campaign launch.

Today, the Foster a Future… Foster a Child Today campaign will roll out across the Province through a variety of media outlets. This a truly outstanding initiative that not only reinforces our government's commitment to safeguarding children and youth, but also delivers an urgent message that will resonate with all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are well known for their generous and caring qualities.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services strongly believes this foster parent recruitment campaign will encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to open their homes and their hearts to children and youth who need a safe and nurturing place to live for a week, a month, a year, or longer. To date, there are 584 foster families serving our Province and we hope through this campaign to attract many more.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that within one hour of our launch on Friday, the department received five inquiries into becoming a foster parent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: In Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, the provincial government introduced the new continuum of care strategy to enhance the care options for children and youth in need of out-of-home placement. This strategy will strengthen foster care by increasing funding for kinship arrangements and foster homes, and enhancing supports and training for foster parents. Improvements like the new four-level system will recognize the skills and training of foster parents, and children and youth will be matched to a foster home that best meets their needs.

I encourage all members of this hon. House to visit www.fosterafuture.ca and view the campaign materials as well as information about becoming a foster parent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

There are many times as an Opposition that it is our job to stand up and question the government on how they are progressing. Many times we are not happy with that, but this is one of the cases where I am very much in agreement with the government's plan and what they are doing here. I commend what the government is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we simply do not have enough foster families in this Province. There is a problem and we need to meet that demand. Anything we can do to increase that – again, by hearing this good news about five calls just in the first hour, this is a step in the right direction.

In my area of the Province on the West Coast, there is a demand. People are forced to travel away from their residence to go to these foster homes. There is simply not enough there. Again, I commend the government for this. I hope it continues to move forward with this plan and we deliver the end goal, which are more foster families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from the District of Burgeo – La Poile. I would like to say thanks to the minister and her department, especially the public servants who carry out this important work; also, a big thanks to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association for continuing their important work.

Every child in Newfoundland and Labrador should be loved and cared for, and treated with fairness. I am happy to see the department is continuing work in that regard.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Question Period. Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last few weeks, government has issued many public reports and marketing materials that they have prepared on Muskrat Falls; however, one report missing from the PR exercise was one from the Public Utilities Board. National groups, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Democracy Watch, political science professors, critics and supporters are all calling for a regulatory review of Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Why are you denying the people of our Province a regulatory review that they are so desperately requesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as most people in this House would be aware, within the last two weeks a number of reports have been released, specifically the Decision Gate 3 numbers as well as MHI's report, as other reports on important questions that have been raised over the last two years to which answers have been provided, not only by Nalcor but by the government, particularly the Department of Natural Resources. Members of Opposition parties in particular have called for other verification of the information that has been provided. Mr. Speaker, we were happy to do that, not only for Opposition parties but for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB had an opportunity to review the information around Muskrat Falls. Over $2 million and nine months later, they were unable to provide said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the PUB did not have was a look at the complete package. We all know that. That was Decision Gate 2 numbers, and they were not convinced on a number of fronts.

Before the price tag on Muskrat Falls increased by $7.4 billion, there were two reviews of the project that were not controlled by government. These were the original but limited PUB review and the report of the Joint Review Panel. Neither of these reviews endorsed the government's project, yet the Premier and her caucus are pushing ahead without this regulatory oversight.

I ask the Premier: Why are you so afraid of an independent regulatory oversight on this Muskrat Falls Project? What is it that this government is trying to hide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a project in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador that has undergone the scrutiny that the development of Muskrat Falls has undergone. We are not trying to keep any secrets, Mr. Speaker. We are letting everybody know, far and wide, that this is a great project, great for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, great for Atlantic Canada, and great for the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we put the question to the PUB. Mr. Speaker, their own expert was able to come back with a recommendation. The Consumer Advocate was able to come back with a recommendation, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor's own oversight through Navigant was able to come back with a recommendation. Dr. Wade Locke has given an endorsement to the project, Mr. Speaker. The federal government has given an endorsement to the project. There is nothing to hide here, much to celebrate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: So if there is nothing to hide, then we have one board in this Province; why not give it to the Public Utilities Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: In the absence of the (inaudible) oversight on Muskrat Falls, the Opposition requested that government's so-called expert witnesses be prepared to address the House, either through committees or through the House of Assembly, and take questions from all MHAs as part of a special debate on Muskrat Falls.

The Premier flat-out rejected this call, so I ask the Premier: Why won't you let the authors of your reports that formed the basis of your justification for the Muskrat Falls project present to this House or to a committee of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Opposition to take a position and defend their position, to support their positions with facts.

Mr. Speaker, the experts in Muskrat Falls are Nalcor. The people of this Province, as well as the Opposition parties, have had full access to Nalcor for over two years. Nalcor's expertise has been validated by MHI, by Ziff, by Navigant, by Dr. Wade Locke, by our bond rating agencies, by the financiers, and by the federal government, just to name a few, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for a policy discussion, which is what you asked for over twenty times. We are here. We are ready. We are able.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Well, Premier, we are here. We are ready. Bring on your witnesses. Bring them in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Just this morning in the media, Professor Chris Dunn called government's handling of Muskrat Falls an affront to democracy. He stated that we have an undeveloped Legislature that is dominated by executive control.

I ask the Premier: Given the idea of calling witnesses on Muskrat Falls is aimed at further developing our Legislature, is there any basis at all on which you call witnesses to this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this project has undergone more scrutiny than any project in the history of this Province. The people opposite are the ones who exempted the projects that they developed from any kind of a regulatory review. At least we tried to get it to the PUB, Mr. Speaker; we tried to get the PUB to review it.

The experts have spoken. Their views have been validated by experts across this country and from other parts in the world, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for a policy debate. It is time for members opposite to fish or cut bait. If you do not agree with this project with all of the information you have at your disposal, you stand and critique the project and have some expertise to back up what you are saying. We are here, we are ready; we are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Like I said, Premier, just bring in the motion. Let us access your experts that you have already had access to, at the cost of taxpayers in this Province. Let us speak to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Back in September, the Premier said that the loan guarantee was just millimetres away. She also said all they were doing was just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

So I ask the Premier: When are we going to hear about the loan guarantee that we have been listening to and hearing about for over two years? When will it be finalized, or is there another excuse today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I have promised the people of this Province and what I have reiterated time and time again in this House is that everything that should be done, ought to be done, and be done in a proper fashion, will be done before we take the sanction decision.

I know that you are all concerned about the loan guarantee, and that is a good thing. Mr. Speaker, it will take whatever time it takes so that the interests of the people of the Province are protected. We will have the loan guarantee in hand, and you will be aware of the detail before we take a sanction decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new cost estimates for the Muskrat Falls project are not accurate, as the Premier continues to only present some selected information. Even the government's Dr. Wade Locke has said that if the project went over $8 billion then it should be revisited.

So, I ask the Premier: Is not the new cost now closer to $9 billion, once you have factored in the interest during construction and the increased costs of the Maritime Link?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Decision Gate 3 numbers deal with the capital costs of the project; and the capital costs of the project are indicated to be $5 billion for the Muskrat Falls generating plant and the Labrador transmission; the Maritime Link is currently at $1.2 billion.

In the briefing that was provided to the Opposition by Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, they outlined the cost. They outlined, for example, how the transmission costs had increased by $481 million. They outlined, Mr. Speaker, how the engineering and project management had increased by $166 million.

What we have here is a situation where, at the estimate we now have, it is plus or minus 10 per cent. Unlike the Decision Gate 2 process where there was a very wide range, the figures are accurate. The interest during this construction is a different issue altogether, Mr. Speaker. What Decision Gate 3 deals with are the capital costs of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Decision Gate 3 numbers also deal with the loan guarantee which was not part of Decision Gate 2 numbers. I do not know anywhere you can get free money, so this $1 billion I think is an appropriate cost to be included in this.

Mr. Speaker, back in April government committed, in this year's Budget, $655 million to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls. At the time, the Premier repeatedly stated that the money would not be spent unless the project was sanctioned.

I ask the Premier: The project has not been sanctioned, so has there been any money spent by Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is well aware of the monies that have been spent to date. They are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that certain parts of the project have to continue in order to get to a decision on sanction.

Mr. Speaker, for example in August of this year there was $13 million that was spent. The major expenditure since then has been the building of the road. Nalcor's justification, as outlined by Mr. Martin on numerous occasions, is that you spend a certain amount of money at the Decision Gate 3 process. If you do not do it now, Mr. Speaker, then it will cost an extra $250 million to the ratepayers of this Province as a result of having to run Holyrood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just look for some clarification: Does that mean that there was money taken from this year's Budget? Is that what is being spent now before sanction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: As the Minister of Natural Resources indicated in terms of the total cost, we are looking at $6.2 billion to the Province for this project. That will be divided into debt and equity. Nalcor will take out the debt; there will be a guarantee from the federal government. It is non-recourse debt. Nalcor will not have to pay anything else; their other assets will not be put in jeopardy.

The Province of Newfoundland does not have to come up with any of that debt because they are not responsible for that debt. The Province will make an equity contribution to the project. Part of that will come out of cash flow and part of it will come out of our borrowing. So far, there has been $300 million equity investment from cash put into Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All MHA offices right now are being inundated with calls about the Home Heating Rebate. Residents are waiting on government to make the announcement. Seniors on fixed incomes and lots of people who are on low incomes, in general, are depending on this money. The program was originally announced over ten years ago.

I ask the Premier: Why do you not have a fixed date for this rebate, and when will it be announced for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have a Home Heating Rebate Program, and this government also eliminated the provincial portion of the HST from all electricity and heating in the Province. That is a combination of $57 million this year for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The Home Heating Rebate Program is usually announced in the October to December time period. There is nothing unusual about the timing of the rebate this year, and we expect to make the announcement on the rebate program in the very, very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the 2003 election, while trying to gain the confidence of voters, the PC Party Blue Book pledged to reduce the age of our Province's school buses so that no buses over ten years old would be used. Just four weeks ago, the minister admitted that over 300 buses more than ten years old are in use, and he does not even know where they are being used.

After nine years, will the minister invest the funds to keep this promise, or will he continue to force thousands of our children onto the highways in old buses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is bothersome to hear a statement like that, that someone would suggest that we would put our students on highways in unsafe buses. Mr. Speaker, we invest $48 million a year in busing. About five or six years ago there were about 7,000 students less and we spent $34 million.

Mr. Speaker, our investment now is $48 million in busing. It is all about being the safest bus system that we can provide for the students of this Province. We have done so and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, for the safety of those students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, at the rate this government is closing schools, they are going to need a lot more buses.

One glaring problem with school busing is the discrimination of funding between board-owned buses versus privately-owned buses. Privately-owned bus operators receive far less funding per bus than boards spend per bus. Consequently, 48 per cent of private contractor buses are over ten years old.

Will the minister immediately commit funds to allow private school bus operators to catch up with the board bus fleets?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member knows it or not, but we go through a tender process. I heard an individual speak this morning about us putting small busing businesses out of business. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, we put in a tender. It is a five-year tender with the option to go five years beyond.

Myself and the former Minister of Service NL, I am sure the present Minister of Service NL, met with the private contractors on numerous occasions trying to find resolutions to some of the issues they had put forward. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do that. Again, we go back to providing the best service that we can and we want to treat everybody fairly, Mr. Speaker, that being the private contractors as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last year this government ran on the election promise that they would pay family caregivers. On June 20, 2012, the minister stated she would make an announcement on paying family caregivers very, very soon. That was five months ago.

I ask the minister: How soon is very, very soon? When will your government make good on this commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in all of the commitments that we make to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we deliver, and we will deliver on this commitment as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a process, as I have outlined before, where there is absolutely no template that we can follow. We have been working diligently. We have been working forward, Mr. Speaker, and we will be making an announcement. I will reiterate, it will be very soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am glad to hear, Mr. Speaker, that it is only very soon now as opposed to very, very soon back in June.

Mr. Speaker, a Stephenville family is struggling to afford care for their daughter whose condition is the only documented case in the world. While government lags on paying family caregivers, the mother gets a full-time job only to have government claw back 72 per cent of her income to pay for home care. If she were to quit, government would pay the full cost.

I ask the minister: Why does this government stand behind policies that discourage people from working?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it can cost upwards of $100,000 on times to provide care under the Special Child Welfare Program. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good program for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people who need it, and we are very happy to provide this program to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what happens under the Special Child Welfare Program is a comprehensive analysis of a client's ability to pay. Mr. Speaker, we look at income and we look at the overall expenses. Mr. Speaker, we look at expenses such as a household expense to cover off groceries, other household costs. We will look at utility bills, Mr. Speaker, we look at phone bills, cellphone bills, and any cost that a person might have already incurred. All of that is considered, Mr. Speaker, in determining a…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the public outcry over the Premier's refusal to allow the PUB to look at her Muskrat Falls deal is mounting, whether she wants to acknowledge it or not. The Premier finally has the information that the PUB needed when she prematurely asked them to make a decision on the project.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Premier: Will she do the right thing that people are asking for and allow the PUB to review the new numbers for her Muskrat Falls Project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Leader of the Third Party refers to her project and certainly the Premier's vision, which is leading to this project. This project is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and our children and our grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition said there are gaps, tell us about wind, tell us about natural gas, and explore all the alternatives. We have explored them, Mr. Speaker, yet I have not heard in the last three weeks anyone criticize the reports in terms of pointing out where we are wrong or where the experts are wrong. All I have heard, Mr. Speaker, is, go back to the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, we saw a poll today which indicates that the majority of people in this Province support Muskrat Falls. They do it for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker, because they believe in the people of our Province and the people at Nalcor to do this job and to do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I suggest that the minister listen to the people of the Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – if the minister wants the project to be for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fiscally conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation is directly lobbying the Harper Conservatives to withhold a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls Project until it gets a pass from the PUB. The federation notes, taxpayers will carry the burden of this deal and they have the right to an independent review.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is it about this project that she does not want all the people, not just her chosen consultants, to see?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Jack Layton supports this project. Jack Harris supports this project. Thomas Mulcair supports this project. We have really come far when the Leader of the NDP is quoted to the right-wing Canadian taxpayers association. My God, what is happening here?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has pledged to give a guarantee of this project to lower our borrowing costs which will lower the rates that people will pay for their electricity in this Province. It is just like putting cash in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: It is the Government of Canada that has given us a guarantee to help protect us over the objections of Quebec.

Now, tell me a federal government, either Progressive Conservative, or Liberal, or what have you, that has ever done that in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about the elusive loan guarantee, which I suspect is going to be a long time coming, not millimetres away as had been said by the Premier a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of well-respected experts inside and outside of this Province, such as David Vardy, a former chair of the Public Utilities Board, and Dr. Gordon Weil, have come forward demanding that the Premier respect due process and allow the PUB scrutiny of the project.

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the Premier: Will she remove all doubt from people's minds – because they have so much doubt about this project – by allowing a full and open review of Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

According to the poll today, for every person who strongly disapproves of the project, four people strongly approve of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Sixty-six per cent of the people of this Province approve, Mr. Speaker, of 81 per cent of the people who answered.

When you look at what is going on, the St. John's Board of Trade has endorsed the project. I am not going to talk about the federal NDP; my colleague just pointed that out. The federal Liberals support the project, Mr. Speaker. We have had the Research and Development Council, all of the unions, we have Mining Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have the reports from our experts, but what the Opposition wants – their definition of an independent expert is one who says no to the project. Mr. Speaker, this project has been reviewed time and time again.

I bring it back to two basic questions: Do you accept we need the power, because if you do, the answer is easy: Muskrat Falls is the option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians will have the chance to have a good hard look at the Muskrat Falls Project through their own Utility and Review Board. While Nova Scotia has a full regulatory review to look at their portion of the project, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will not get a truly independent review of the largest investment ever made in the Province's history.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: why won't she allow a fully open and transparent process in this Province? She says that her government is open and transparent. It is not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at the legislation governing the UARB, and essentially what it states is that they must approve the Maritime Link if it is satisfied that the project represents the least-cost alternative to ratepayers. Essentially what they are doing is they are looking at rates, Mr. Speaker, so their review is: must approve.

Secondly, they are going to be dealing with, my understanding, Decision Gate 2 numbers, as Decision Gate 3 numbers are not currently available. What we are going to see, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where they will come to a decision and that they must give a decision, unlike our PUB. It is very unfortunate the circumstances that surround what our PUB did. I am surprised it has not come out more.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, do we need the power? Clearly MHI and the provincial Load Forecast say we need the power. We need it now, Mr. Speaker, and Muskrat Falls is the least-cost alternative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, some students with special education needs in this Province have been wait-listed for up to a year before they finally receive in-school assessments. Five years ago, the ISSP/Pathways Commission recommended that the Department of Education establish provincial standards for timely completion of these assessments. Unfortunately for parents and students, the Minister of Education has failed to act on this.

What excuse does the minister have for failing to address the issue of in-school assessments for students with special education needs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, about two weeks ago I met with the School Counsellors' Association provincially that speaks on behalf of psychologists and guidance counsellors in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a referral tracking system they are very supportive of. There are some kinks that have to be worked out. We have also gone to school boards to see if there are ways they can use resources across different jurisdictions to speed up the wait-list time.

Mr. Speaker, we recognized there was work to be done. We have tackled it and, Mr. Speaker, we expect to see positive results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister's public statements, it is well established that early assessment is crucial for ensuring children get the special education programs and services they need. Long wait-lists simply make their problems worse.

Why is this minister pretending to have a handle on this issue when he clearly does not understand the importance of early assessment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I spent all last spring trying to get some message through to this member. Apparently it did not sink in then, but I am going to hope over the next month and a half that I will get it sunk through.

Mr. Speaker, if he has followed our investments in early childhood – $4.8 million over three years to put resources in the hands of parents so they can work with their children. Mr. Speaker, I said to him: Research indicates that those very early years from zero to three and the two years of age – critical. We have the public health assessment that goes on.

Mr. Speaker, our department are working with those agencies. We are identifying, as early as we possibly can, where there are needs. Together, we address them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU are resuming today in Brussels, and the provinces are at the table too. In exchange for lowering shrimp tariffs, the EU wants to remove restrictions on exporting raw fish and on foreign ownership of fish plants and more access to our harbours to bring the raw fish back to Europe for processing.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: What is his department doing to ensure that we do not lose control of our fishery in the CETA trade deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we view the trade agreement with the EU certainly as a great advantage for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially related to getting immediate access with no end use restrictions on our fish alliance to the EU. We stated that publicly; it is certainly important to us.

There are a number of issues at the table and those discussions are ongoing this week. As a Province, we are very clear. We will do what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of our communities, and all of the regions of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not in the best interest, moving the minimum processing in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of IBRD has released almost no information on to the public and these trade negotiations are taking place behind closed doors. After requesting twice in the last six months, I received a laundry list of general topics, with little mention at all of the fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When are you planning to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that their fishery is in danger of being sold out from under them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the negotiations the hon. member is involved with, but it is not the ones that I have been listening to and getting updated on. I really cannot comment on his negotiations of what is happening.

As I said before, we are very interested in a half a billion dollars in consumers in the EU. Certainly, Canada is negotiating with the EU. My officials have been engaged with the chief negotiator for Canada over the past year-and-a-half, and continue to be. As I said, whatever comes out of this agreement with the EU, it will be the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for us to sign on for this Province to be a part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I Give Notice That I Will Move That The House Resolve Itself Into A Committee Of The Whole To Consider A Resolution Relating To The Advancing Or Guaranteeing Of Certain Loans Made Under The Loans And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 40)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the Opposition parties, the four motions introduced will be read the first time today as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. Minister of Health and Community Services – are you going to be introducing the bills under first reading?

MR. KING: Well, the four that were just read, Mr. Speaker, would be the four that would also go into first reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would ask the minister, though, if she would – because she just served notice of her intent, and I would ask now if the minister would, in fact, make such a motion and introduce the bills at first reading.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move that that bill now be read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: All three bills in your name?

MS SULLIVAN: All three bills, yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So, with the consent of the House then, it has been moved and seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and –

MR. DAVIS: I will second it.

MS SULLIVAN: Seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: So it has been moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

She further has leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 40)

Also, leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports, Bill 42, and that the said bills be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 and The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 40)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

A bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports. (Bill 42)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills, carried:

"An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 and The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act". (Bill 40)

"An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act". (Bill 41)

"An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports". (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave for the Premier to give notice of her intention to introduce a private member's motion, and leave to introduce such motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Premier have leave to serve notice of introducing a bill and the leave to introduce such a motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier has leave.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I propose to introduce the following private member's motion, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl South.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House now supports the development of Muskrat Falls Hydro Project.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will introduce the following private member's motion, seconded by the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

WHEREAS the Arctic presents significant opportunities for future economic growth and development, and Newfoundland and Labrador is well-positioned to play a central role because of our Province's geographic location, industrial infrastructure, knowledge and experience in operating in cold and harsh environments, research and development capacity and facilities, and favourable reputation; and

WHEREAS our government launched the cross-departmental Arctic Opportunities Initiative in April of 2010 to identify opportunities, build knowledge and capacity, promote awareness of our Province's strengths, and find ways the government can help advance and support local successes in Arctic development; and our Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development is also leading a federal-provincial Arctic committee focused on promoting collaboration between the provincial and federal governments to advance opportunities in the North; and

WHEREAS in September and October of 2012, the Province conducted a series of stakeholder engagement sessions in St. John's, Lewisporte, Corner Brook, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush, bringing together a broad base of stakeholders from government, academia, communities, community organizations and industry to discuss opportunities, challenges and the role the Province can play in advancing and supporting work in the Arctic for companies and organizations in the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourages the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue – through its Arctic Opportunities Initiative – to identify and advance opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take the lead in Arctic development initiatives, specifically by producing an Arctic "plan forward" that will promote Newfoundland and Labrador as the ideal staging ground for Arctic-related activities, given our many capabilities and competitive advantages, and work with local companies, institutions and organizations to identify and prepare to capture Arctic opportunities as they emerge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the motion just read will be debated this coming Private Members' Day, Wednesday, November 21.

MR. SPEAKER: This Wednesday coming we will be debating the Member for Lake Melville –

MR. KING: The Arctic opportunities, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further, to the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, respecting the whole debate on the Muskrat Falls issue, I want to make a couple of comments to share some information for the House. As we have all observed over the last number of weeks and months, and again today, there has been a significant level of questioning about what is happening in the Province with the project. As the minister and the Premier have repeatedly said throughout the process, that information is available and (inaudible), a report is presented. We continue to try and make information available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, in light of government's continued concern to focus on a debate in the House of Assembly, you have just heard a few moments ago the Premier's intention to introduce a private member's resolution, which we will call later in the session. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it known for the public here today, that the government has at its access, approximately fourteen hours –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We are under Notices of Motion, does the House Leader have a new motion that he is bringing forward, because I am not sure what is happening, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand, the Government House Leader is making comment on the notice of motion provided by the hon. Premier. That is the heading. We are under Notices of Motion. He has just served notice that the motion to be debated this Wednesday will be the motion read into the record by the Member for Lake Melville. I understand he is making comment now with respect to the notice of motion made by the Premier. Is that correct?

MR. KING: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So, if you would confine your comments to that particular point, then –

MR. KING: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

The notice of motion given by the Premier was respecting a provincial debate in this Legislature on Muskrat Falls. I am making it known to members of the Opposition and the public that the government is still interested in a full debate, beyond the Private Members' Day.

Today, we are letting you know that we are going to devote the entire allocation of Address in Reply time that government has left for members who have not participated. Mr. Speaker, along with the private member's motion, that will amount to some fourteen hours of continuous debate in this Legislature that we are going to participate in.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize many of the issues raised by the Opposition. They continue to have questions, so at this time I invite the Opposition to consider committing their entire thirty minutes of Question Period per day for the remainder of time until we get to the debate, which would give us another five-and-a-half complete hours debate on Muskrat Falls, for a total of just shy of twenty hours debate on Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just noted the comments made by the Government House Leader, and I guess I am asking for the opportunity to respond to the request which has now been placed on the floor of the House of Assembly. I am looking for your direction to see in what format we do that.

MR. SPEAKER: As I am understanding the comment made by the Government House Leader, there is not a motion on the floor; there is no request to the House to make a decision. As I was listening to the member, he was making a comment around the Private Member's Motion introduced by the Premier and how that motion was going to be debated. There is no request on the floor to ask the House for permission to do anything, as I am hearing his comments. Is that correct, Government House Leader?

MR. KING: The only request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a request?

MR. KING: No I am not, Mr. Speaker, other than to ask for the Opposition to consider devoting Question Period time, but it is not a decision for the House, it is a decision for the Opposition if they feel it is critical enough to focus on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If I could just before, though, because I think it is important, the issue of Question Period is the prerogative of the Opposition parties and the issue that they choose to debate and ask questions on is their prerogative and their call.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarity, what I am understanding is that the Government House Leader is proposing today that the Opposition forfeit all of our other issues in the Province to use our time for Question Period on Muskrat Falls alone, to forfeit the opportunity to address and speak to Address in Reply and use that time to debate the Muskrat Falls project, as opposed to the Premier today doing what allows her to do under the rules of the House: move a motion on the Order Paper towards Muskrat Falls, which gives every member in this House the opportunity to speak to that; Mr. Speaker, that is the fair and reasonable approach of the government, to be able to respond and debate that particular motion.

I take great offence to the government today telling us that if we want to talk to Muskrat Falls and debate it, we give up our Question Period to do so and we give up our opportunity for Address in Reply. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just so that members understand what the Speaker heard in the comments, what I was hearing – and that is why I indicated that there was no request to the House to make a decision – the Government House Leader had indicated that it was his intention that the government would use their time in Address in Reply to speak to the issues with respect to the Muskrat Falls issue.

Second, I heard the comment that he was offering up in suggesting that the Opposition might entertain using Question Period to pose questions.

It was not in the form of a motion. It was not in the form of a request to the House that such an act would take place. I am understanding that is the statement made by the Government House Leader and I not seeing a motion before the House, nor am I seeing any requests to the House to make a decision, nor am I seeing a request to the Opposition parties to make a decision that the House needs to address.

Have I captured the essence of your comments?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you have.

To be clear, it was not meant to be offensive. I make the following offer that government is prepared to waive the fact that some members have spoken to Address in Reply. I will let all of those members speak again if there is consent of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The issue of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appreciate the spirit in which it would have been said, but it is not the Government House Leader's, nor the House's, prerogative to actually change the order of speaking for the Address in Reply. Each member gets an opportunity to speak once. There is a time allocated as outlined in our Standing Orders and we will continue to be guided by our Standing Orders with respect to how much time is left to speak, who is left to speak, and how that will be managed.

The Leader of the Third Party was rising on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: I was, Mr. Speaker.

I still do not understand how what the Government House Leader has been putting forward fits under the notice of motion. I really do not. I think he has gone beyond what the notice of motion is about and what the intent of notice of motion is. I cannot believe that he has done what he has done, which is to bring the government's agenda in to try to further manipulate the discussion in this House using the notice of motion as the way in which to do it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how that is not out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further points to the point of order?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one other point.

Not only do I take great offence to what is being suggested here today, but obviously, this is a way for the government to try and say they met their commitment on debating Muskrat Falls, which indeed is not the case at all.

I think it is important to note that even if you were to use Address in Reply time, there are number of people in the House of Assembly who have already spoken to Address in Reply. In the case of the Opposition, there are only three members in our bench, one member in the NDP bench, who have not spoken.

This is a very unfair and unreasonable practice that is being proposed by the government, Mr. Speaker. I would call on the Premier to do the right thing, and that is to put a proper motion to the House of Assembly that allows all members to stand and speak at their will.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I said a few moments ago we are quite prepared to offer our support, if there is consent of the House, so that all speakers would have an opportunity to speak to this debate. I said that five or six minutes ago. There is no intent here for members not to be able to speak.

We are trying to find a way forward so the debate can take place. We have indicated our willingness to participate through Address in Reply and the Private Members' Day. If it is the will and there is interest in having a discussion, we are prepared to look at how those other members can participate. We are not trying to exclude people; we are trying to find a way forward to facilitate a debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader is trying to have a negotiation here on the floor with regard to the debate that we wanted to have. If that is what the Government House Leader wants to do, we should be doing that. We should be calling a meeting and doing that and not using notice of motion for the government to bring forward. It is manipulation of this House.

I cannot believe what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. It is outrageous what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comment to the point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. As I have summarized in the past, I understand the Government House Leader has indicated in response to commenting on the Premier's notice of motion of when that motion will be debated. There is no further point of order to be debated in the House.

We move on to the next order of business, which is Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS education is a provincial responsibility; and

WHEREAS high school students are finding their sexual education is lacking in areas such as inclusivity, depth and consistency across the Province; and

WHEREAS because of this, students are at a disadvantage in understanding and utilizing knowledge in concepts that will help them in their daily lives;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to urge the government to implement a mandatory educational program for high school students that includes what is lacking in the sexual education program as of today. A program that includes correct and unbiased information on a wide array of useful and realistic subjects and issues that are relevant to high school students and have to do with human sexuality.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, two Sundays ago I attended a Youth Leadership Conference at Memorial University. It was attended by members from my party and members from the Third Party. This is a Youth Leadership Conference that takes place annually for young people to develop leadership skills, and they come from all over the Province. It was noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that nobody from the governing party saw fit to attend this youth conference. In the course of the youth conference, they provided petitions, had them properly drafted, circulated them among themselves and their families, and asked that they be presented in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we educate students in so many areas, yet in some areas that are vitally important in their daily lives we do not bother to educate them. This is a critically important area and high school students have properly and professionally drafted a petition and have asked to have it presented here in the House of Assembly. This House of Assembly will call on the government to advance sex education at a high school level. They are to be commended at the initiative they took; however, the importance of the issue is something all of us deal with, whether we are parents, grandparents, or any family members.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition and I urge this House to act forthwith on this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from people who rallied in St. John's yesterday, expressing concerns with regard to the process being followed around Muskrat Falls. The petition speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (PUB) is the entity responsible for the regulation of electric utilities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project proposal is potentially the single largest expenditure the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has considered; and

WHEREAS the PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body capable of providing an unbiased and apolitical decision on the Muskrat Falls proposal; and

WHEREAS the government is breaking its own commitment to greater transparency and accountability by not allowing the PUB to review the Muskrat Falls proposal;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to mandate the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities Board to review the Muskrat Falls Project proposal along with any and all alternatives available for meeting our energy needs.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I have the sheets of signatures here, Mr. Speaker, to go with that petition.

This petition reflects, Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from people all over the Province. The people who have signed this petition I believe reflect the voice of many, many thousands of people in this Province with regard to the process that is going on around the Muskrat Falls proposal. I think it is important to point out – it was obvious to me yesterday as I met, and met many of the people who signed these petitions yesterday – that people were not gathering and saying yes or no to Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. Many people are still wondering, is it the best way to go?

Some who were even involved in the rally yesterday thought maybe it is, but they are really upset about the process, and this is what the petition is about. They do not understand why government is not using our formal regulatory body to look at this project. It smacks of secrets, and it makes people question. That is why they want an open process, so that everything is out on the table so that people have a full understanding of all the details of the project. They cannot understand a government in this day and age acting in the way that it is acting – actually closing down our own regulatory body to do the work that it is set to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petition does speak for itself, and I am very happy to pass it in.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the Immaculate Conception School Petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS our schools are the heart of our communities and we should do all we can to preserve them long into the future; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Immaculate Conception School in Colliers as a K-4 school denies students fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy, active, safe, and caring school environment;

WHEREAS government is compelled to give school reconfiguration decisions some consideration, as was the case in 2005 when the PC government decided to ensure the continuation of a K-12 system in Bishop's Falls; and

WHEREAS parents of Immaculate Conception School students have been lobbying government for a school gymnasium facility since 1999;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to maintain Immaculate Conception School as a K-6 school. We further petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that a new school is constructed to replace the existing inadequate facilities at Immaculate Conception School.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say briefly that parents in a number of communities around in schools that are governed by the Eastern School District are concerned about proposed closures and reconfigurations within the district. I attended a public meeting in Avondale a number of weeks ago, and I know the hon. Member for Harbour Main, the Minister of Environment and Conservation was also there. There were quite a number of people there. There were even PC Party luminaries such as Marjorie there, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all know how concerned people are in Colliers and surrounding communities. They are very concerned. We also know how optimistic residents in the area are about the future of the Conception Bay, Central region. They have a great future ahead of them and they hope that Immaculate Conception School will have that as well.

Parents have serious concerns about sending their Grades 5 and 6 students to Roncalli. They believe that a better solution is to construct a new school to replace the facility at Immaculate Conception. I hope that the members opposite will think about that and hear the concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition of members from a small community, Eddies Cove West:

WHEREAS with declining enrollment, distance education by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than the slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the community of Eddie's Cove West; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the delivery of high-speed Internet or broadband throughout the Province is that the government is simply asking for proposals from different companies. They say bring us a proposal and then we will price it and then high-speed Internet is being delivered to the various communities. What they ought to be doing is going to the companies instead and saying that we have these ten communities, twenty communities or five communities and we need a proposal to cover all of them.

What is happening instead is that the companies are being permitted to cherry pick and pick up the larger centres and bypass the smaller centres. The effect to the smaller centres, they are absolutely panicked – and justifiably so – that as time goes on it would be virtually impossible to go back and add them. Whereas, instead of blundering forward, the government could have a better strategy.

This government brags about the increase in the amount of broadband access there is in the Province and, in fact, they have increased from 60 per cent coverage to 85 per cent coverage over the last eight or nine years. That puts us more or less at the Canadian average; however, the ones that are being left behind are more and more difficult to serve.

Eddies Cove West is only twelve or fifteen kilometres from Port au Choix and it could easily have been included in the overall package. By leaving these small communities, it means that they will be unable to grow and to progress; it is difficult for Distance Education, for the small businesses, and for the small community offices. These are self-sufficient communities. They are not being provided services.

Today, broadband or high-speed Internet should be the same as telephone service or electricity. Government should make the proposal to the communities rather than have the companies come to the government with the proposal. The government needs to take the lead, show some direction, show that it has a strategy, and ask to have it priced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the access to information and protection of privacy amendment act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal the passage of Bill 29.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again speaking about one of the most regressive pieces of legislation ever passed in this House of Assembly. People across the Province are still reeling from the betrayal that they feel as a result of this legislation. This government promised to be the most accountable, transparent and open, but their actions have been the opposite.

A month after passing this regressive bill many, many people of Newfoundland and Labrador are still opposing it, as is our caucus here today. People continue to ask us for our petition because they want their voices heard in this House, and they feel their voice on this bill has not been heard.

Bill 29 has become synonymous for bad government decisions and an attack on the very principles of democracy. This amounts to nothing short of a betrayal of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of our democratic principles when we need greater access to information more than ever.

I ask this government to repeal this legislation and honour its commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to restore governance with greater openness, transparency, and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the need for cellular coverage is far reaching in the District of The Straits – White Bay North; and

WHEREAS there is limited cellphone coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony Airport to St. Anthony and there is little to no cellphone coverage in communities surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436, Route 437, and Route 438; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the residents of The Straits – White Bay North district feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop incentives for further investments in cellular phone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to support the residents of The Straits – White Bay North district in their request to obtain adequate cellular phone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, today this petition is signed by residents of Savage Cove, Eddies Cove East, Green Island Brook, Flower's Cove, St. Anthony, Pines Cove, St. Carols, Great Brehat, Goose Cove, Raleigh – a lot of signatures from Raleigh – and signatures from Port au Choix as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has developed a Rural Broadband Initiative, but as we move forward in a knowledge-based economy we have not truly developed and adapted an advanced telecommunications strategy which is all-encompassing and includes cellular. It would also include how it would share government services around technology and the technology base sector, how we educate, how we provide safety, whether it would be developing the next generation of 911. These are significant gaps.

I have talked to mobility providers and I do believe we can have movement on this so that we can have better coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, so that the people can get the service that they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my district, which says:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the crab being fished in Area 2J is currently landed and processed in Area 2J; and

WHEREAS this ensures that processors and plant workers adjacent to the resource benefit appropriately from the resource; and

WHEREAS any change to this practice will be detrimental to communities with processing plants in communities adjacent to Area 2J;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to commit to maintaining this practice and disallow any Area 2J crab to leave Area 2J to be landed or processed in other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that petition has come about simply because the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has decided to do a review of a longstanding policy around the crab fishery in Labrador, which has been in place since the early 1990s. Really, I guess, the awareness around it was created back in the later 1990s, when there were additional crab processing licences given out in Labrador.

At the time, the government decided that in order to protect this fishery for the communities, and so that people would invest, they would ensure that all the crab caught there would be processed there. As we know, the Province can dictate where people land fish, they can dictate where it is processed; in this case, they have. As a result of it, they have allowed these communities to build a very stable fishery over the years when other areas of the Province have been in complete turmoil in the same industry.

To take this policy now and change it would mean, Mr. Speaker, that it could affect every single community that is in the fishery on the South Coast and the North Coast of Labrador, very much so the South Coast, which is the area that I represent.

As of today, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company is a model for future fisheries in this Province. It is a model for the world in terms of how fishing enterprises should be run and how the rewards of a raw resource owned by people can see dividends flowing to communities and enterprises. Well, that is what this company has done over the years, and they have been able to do it, because government has allowed them to have practices like the policy we see around 2J crab.

This company, they use their operations in crab, and shrimp, and the offshore, and the ground fish, to all supplement industries in communities, and create jobs. I think that is the goal we all strive for in the industry, and that is the goal that I would like to see kept in place, so I ask the government to look at this policy and look at the wishes of what people are asking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3, Bill 31, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege for me today to be here in my capacity as the Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat to move second reading of this particular piece of legislation. I am very happy to do it, because what this amendment is going to do is that it is going to protect union membership of bargaining unit employees who are going to be transitioning into the new Human Resources Secretariat, which is part of the Executive Council.

Honourable members, I know, will be aware from when we did the Estimates during the Budget process, and they discovered that we had renamed what was previously the Public Service Secretariat as the Human Resources Secretariat. This came about because of a review that took place of the human resource policies and strategies and programs that the government offers to our public service. We noticed that the people providing human resource services were not in one place. It was kind of disjointed; they were scattered around in different departments, some in the Public Service Secretariat, some in the Department of Finance, and in other places, the other one being Strategic Human Resource Divisions directors; I think there were six of those as well. They felt the services that were being provided were disjointed, the human resource services, and that there was a lack of clear accountability. The recommendation was that we correct or that we establish a new secretariat, a Human Resources Secretariat within the Executive Council to integrate all human resource functions and to focus all human resource functions into one place, and that would be in the new secretariat.

We are talking about human resources. What do human resources mean? The term of course human resources generally refers to a set of people or the group of people who make up the workforce of any organization.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provides services to the people of this Province. The most important part of being able to provide those services are the people who work for the government, who work for the core public service and work for government agencies and commissions, what have you. These are the people who provide the services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition to governing, of course, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is an employer. The government hires people to provide very important programs and very important services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Human resources is the management of the employment relationship. It is all about the interactions that occur between the government as an employer and the thousands of its very valued employees.

Human resource management professionals help to attract and retain the most qualified and talented people to work in our public service, and I think all of us have learned. Maybe some of us did not know this before we got here, but one of the things we particularly learned is the number of very capable people, very hard-working people that we do have working in the public service here. Maybe a lot of people who are watching on TV today may not realize, but that is one thing I learned very quickly, that we have a lot of highly talented and extremely capable people. That is good in providing good progressive policies to the people of the Province.

Human resource management professionals help us attract and retain the most qualified and talented people to work in our public service. They plan for changing workforce needs. They offer advice and support to managers and employees on employment and performance related matters. They support organizational and professional development, and generally try to ensure that departments and agencies have the human resources, or have the people they need to meet their goals and objectives. The creation of a new integrated Human Resource Secretariat, at the time we are doing it, certainly fits nicely with the new Human Resource Information Management system that we brought in.

Phase I of the new system is scheduled to roll out this fall. When fully implemented, the new Human Resource Information Management system will combine data and functions of several separate and antiquated HR payroll systems into one modern integrated system. This system will benefit the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as an employer, as well as Government of Newfoundland and Labrador employees by providing them with a more direct and timely access to human resource information pertaining to such things as payroll, leave, benefits, pension counselling, group insurance, and what have you.

With a better integration of HR information through the Human Resource Information Management system, this new computer system, and have HR services throughout the new Secretariat, there are many exciting opportunities to provide a level of HR service delivery that rivals any public sector employer or, indeed, any private sector employer in the country. Indeed, this is the goal of the Secretariat.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a new Human Resource Secretariat, as I said earlier, is going to integrate all human resource functions that are within the core public service into this new Secretariat, which is within the Executive Council. It is very important to note that the Secretariat is in the Executive Council. What this is going to do is improve access to human resource services for employees. It is going to provide consistency in human resource service delivery. So, instead of it being offered by various different groups scattered throughout government, we are now going to have one group offering consistent messaging. We are going to improve processes as well.

Essentially, what that is about is making improvements to the provincial government's internal human resource structure. It is improvements for both government departments who provide the service and it is going to be improvements for the employees who are recipients of human resource services. What we are talking about here is not services we are providing to the public, but services that government is providing to its employees so that they can better serve the general public.

Our employees, Mr. Speaker, work hard every day to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the creation of this new Human Resource Secretariat will provide the best possible human resource services to the people who, in turn, serve the people of our great Province.

Mr. Speaker, employees of the former Public Service Secretariat have already transitioned – I think that was in March or April of this year – into the new Human Resource Secretariat and the new name, as members became aware of during the Budget process, during the Estimates process, the new name Human Resource Secretariat has been adopted. Other employees and other functions will be transitioned over the coming months.

Once the transition is complete, the new Human Resource Secretariat will also include, in addition to the Public Service Secretariat, the six strategic human resource management divisions that formerly existed. They will now report to the new Secretariat. Also, selected components of the Department of Finance will also be transitioned. These are employees, although in the Department of Finance, that manage what are human resource functions, such as: payroll processing, time and attendance management, group insurance administration, pensions counselling services to employees, and strategic staffing functions for the public service whose employees will now report to the Human Resource Secretariat's Assistant Deputy Minister for Compensation and Staffing.

Mr. Speaker, having provided some background and context, I would now like to speak to the amendment that we have before us today in Bill 31. I think we have to look at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, the original act, and we note that the Human Resource Secretariat like the former Public Service Secretariat is, in fact, housed within the structure of Executive Council.

Section 2.(1)(i)(xi) states that an employee of the Executive Council are exempt from being members of the bargaining unit. That means employees who work in Executive Council and there are other divisions than Executive Council, as members are aware, are not allowed to be members of the union.

Mr. Speaker, there are two exceptions to that: one is employees who work in the establishment of the Lieutenant-Governor; and also there were certain employees at the Office of the Chief Information Officer who transferred back in 2005. The various employees of government who working in Information Management and computer management were transitioned into the new Office of the Chief Information Officer, which was in Executive Council. They were grandfathered. Their bargaining positions were protected.

What this amendment will do today will preserve union membership for bargaining unit employees who are now going to be transferring to the new Human Resource Secretariat, as long as they remain in the position they occupy upon transition to the new HR entity. Once a current incumbent leaves a position, it will become a non-bargaining unit unless another unionized employee who transitioned to the Secretariat at the same time successfully secures that position and the position has not, since the transition took place, been held by a non-unionized employee.

In simple terms, the employees of the Executive Council and the Human Resource Secretariat will be part of the Executive Council. They are not permitted to be members of the union. These employees are being transferred into this position, not because they asked to but because this is a government internal reorganization. What we want to do is to protect their rights to remain in the union as long as they occupy the position. So even if the first person who transitioned, if that person retired and somebody else who transitioned at the same time applied for and got that transition, the position would still be a union position.

Again, once a current incumbent leaves the position, it will become a non-bargaining unit position unless another unionized employee who transitioned at the same time successfully secures the position and the position has not, since transition, been held by a non-unionized employee. Mr. Speaker, government entered into a memorandum of agreement, an MOU, with NAPE to ensure these employees would be protected.

Now, it raises an interesting question, of course. I am sure the people watching would be interested as to why members of Executive Council would normally be excluded from this. Why would they not be allowed to be members of a union?

As I said, the exception is the Lieutenant-Governor's residence. I do not know why the employees of that residence are exempted. We know that when OCIO employees moved in, they were exempted and they were protected so they could remain in the union. We are going to do the same here with the employees coming over into the new Human Resource Secretariat from other departments.

Employees of Executive Council are precluded from being members of the bargaining unit, since the Executive Council is essentially the operating arm, the operational arm, the administrative arm of government, which is involved in labour relations, including collective bargaining. They are doing that on behalf of the employer; in developing and enforcing policies, that affects the employment relationship between the public service employees and their employer.

What we are trying to do here, the background reason, the main reason, of course, is that by excluding bargaining unit positions from Executive Council, it helps to prevent potential conflicts of interest. Most human resource and labour relations positions are properly excluded from a bargaining unit because of the nature of the duties that are assigned to those positions. This is the case for other public sector employees across the country, and is also the case in the private sector as well.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that these employees are being moved into Executive Council, again, not because they applied, but because of an employer-initiated restructuring, and they would, of course, have concerns about losing their union rights, their membership, their seniority, et cetera. This amendment will address some of those concerns. We believe this is a reasonable accommodation for employees who are current union members to protect their bargaining unit membership. We believe this is a reasonable balance between the employer's interest on the one hand and the interests of our valued employees.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly looking forward to an opportunity to discuss these short but important amendments to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act here in the House of Assembly. The passage of this bill will facilitate the ongoing formation of the new Human Resource Secretariat and will benefit our public service employees now and well into the future.

I know that hon. members were certainly interested in what I had to say about the Human Resource Management System. I am sure that is something that we can discuss during the debate, and I look forward to hon. members taking part in this debate and working with us to ensure that the union rights of our employees are protected in this instance. So, I would urge passage of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After review of the amendment to Bill 31, when you take a quick look at it, there really does not seem to be a whole lot in this amendment, but the fact that the members that currently would be exempt from the bargaining unit, and now with this transfer from the – they would now maintain their position within the bargaining unit.

The minister made reference that currently the Executive Council would not be members, and I guess the question would be: what would happen now? What would the impact be, for instance, in these positions right now, once we had some kind of mixture during the transition where we would have some members of a bargaining unit, and some that probably would not be the ones that are currently existing there.

So the fact is, from the employee's point of view, we would ask the question: how did the consultation process go with the number of people that have been affected – I understand there are about fifty-one people or so there – and protecting the rights in the transfer, what has been done, what does this mean, except the fact that they will still remain within the bargaining unit itself.

The big thing for us is how the consulting went with the employees, what was the feedback, and if indeed this is a situation that they are willingly embracing, or is this just simply that the government had made a decision that the transfer of those employees was something that they really had no say in, but indeed was something that was required by government.

Of course, when you make any changes like this, there are always certain costs involved; I am not sure how much that would be, but it would be a question that we would certainly like to see answered when you move this many people around.

Mr. Speaker, from the onset of this bill it seems to be somewhat a very simple amendment but, as I said, the question for us would be about consulting with the number of employees who are involved. Are any of the benefits affected and, indeed, the cost that is associated with any of the transfers of these employees into the Human Resource Secretariat?

With that, that would pretty much mean this would, once we get those questions answered, I guess – I am sure there is probably something else that would come from the discussion we would want to see answered; yet, like I said, when you take a quick look at this, there really does not seem to be any huge impact. The employees who are affected here are in agreement with this transfer. I would imagine the timing of the transfer, this is something that is already done, or when do you anticipate this happening?

Those are my remarks for now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: I rise in the House today to support Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Before I comment, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for including me in this debate today. I would like to thank the Member for Humber Valley for his comments. He is right, this is a little bit of housekeeping in essence, but I would like to get into it a little bit further and discuss it here today.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 31 is certainly an example of investment and goodwill by our government. This is about being fair and doing the right thing for our employees. This is about treating our employees with respect.

Bill 31 is about providing better service to government employees, and, Mr. Speaker, this just makes sense. The purpose of the amendment is to protect employees who will be assigned to the new Human Resource Secretariat of Executive Council by protecting their union membership. That is basically the essence of this amendment. At face value, that makes all the sense in the world, and I am sure everybody would agree with that.

While it is a union-friendly initiative that protects union rights, membership and seniority, perhaps and most importantly, there will be no job losses as a result of these changes. Mr. Speaker, we believe this is a very fair way to treat employees who are involved in the restructuring. As we move forward we will see more of that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the new Human Resource Secretariat As the minister alluded earlier, world-class best practices in both public and private sectors encourage human resource organizational structures to be held under one umbrella, and this is the essence of the formation of the Human Resource Secretariat. By establishing a Human Resource Secretariat we are creating one point of contact, providing better service to government employees with an overall improvement in service delivery. This is essential as we move forward into the twenty-first Century.

The first employees to be transitioned came from the Public Service Secretariat, this was done last March. Others to follow during this transition include the Strategic Human Resource Management Divisions, human resource functions in the Department of Finance, pension counselling, group insurance, administration, time and attendance management, payroll processing, et cetera. As well, there are other employees in strategic staffing, functioning for the public service, who are involved as well. We are expecting full transition to be completed by April 1, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the future of human resource management is about making services more user friendly to employees. Not only through the use of technology, which the minister alluded to, but through one point of contact, business processes and business structures.

Just a little sidebar on the technology piece; as we move forward in today's society technology is playing more and more a role in our everyday lives. As employees of the government or employees in private business, you want to have access to your files. You want to have access to exactly where you stand in terms of your vacation time or your pension plans. That technology is now catching up with us in the public service here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is very important as well.

As we move forward, the plan is to get better with newer technology tools that employees in the public service will be able to take advantage of. Again, providing consistency in service delivery, in simplifying services, is good for the employee and good for the employer.

Governments want motivated and productive employees. I think that is a pretty basic statement. They want to treat their employees with respect. I think that is very, very important. I think we all agree. Every member in this House would agree to that, and they want to treat them as valued assets. When I say the word assets, it is in the right sense. An asset is something that you want, that you need, that is worthwhile.

Employees in today's lexicon, in human resources, are looked upon as valued assets. By improving HR processes, employers are thinking about their employees' needs and wants, and this is one of the positive outcomes by creating a new Human Resources Secretariat. Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, I spent many years in the private sector as both a front-line employee and lately as a senior manager. This certainly is one of the areas that stands out to me in terms of increasing in importance in the company that I worked in for twenty-five years.

When I first joined my company twenty-seven years ago now actually, the HR processes were there. There was very little involvement between the employee and the employer other than your payroll; there were some pension issues that you had to deal with. Personal development, using your vacation time in the right process – there are a lot of elements that were not there twenty-five years ago. As time has progressed I noticed it within my company. Our practices improved over the years and it just got better and better.

The private sector has seen that. The public sector has seen that as well. What we see today is that evolution. It has been fast tracked; HR is becoming a critical piece in any corporation, for any business, or in particular in the public service sector.

Once upon a time the HR manager or the head of HR in a company would not be sitting at the board table. Today, the HR, the VP of HR or the CEO would be sitting next to the HR managers. They would be involved in every single decision. Today, they are involved in every single decision that is made in the corporate boardroom.

The same should be said for government. The HR function is a very, very important function in today's society, and employees expect them to be treated with respect. This is what the Human Resources Secretariat is meant to do and meant to accomplish.

This trend is across all sectors. The traditional HR functions have rapidly evolved in recognition that employees again are indeed assets. Responsive HR processes help employees manage their present and their future. When we talk about that, we talk about managing their pension, managing what is going to happen after your life in public service or in your job.

Tracking what you do and how you do it is essential to people making their long-term plans and commitments for their families and for themselves. Better processes that are in place make it better for all. The Human Resources Secretariat is basically meant to do exactly that.

While we bring both government employees to a better place – and essentially this is what is happening here now – government is going about this in the right way. We are treating our employees with respect. We are showing them that we respect what they do by offering them the ability to carry their union status into the new Secretariat. That is a good thing government has done. It is a responsible thing that we have done and our employees would be happy about that. Our government firmly believes employees are an asset whose values enhance if we provide them with strong human resource management practices. We need to continue to make our processes even stronger.

So when we look to the future, what is our HR management going to look like within government? I would suggest to you that this is just the beginning. I would suggest to you what you will probably see in the future is more interactive technology involved in our day-to-day lives in terms of determining what our future holds for us and what we need to do with the HR piece of our status as employees.

Happy employees are productive employees. That is obviously an essential piece to business and an essential piece to good governance as well. So the strategic management of our workforce is essential. We need to continue to do the right things. By listening and responding to employees we are being responsible and respectful during this transition.

Bill 31 is a necessary piece of legislation that protects employees impacted by this transition while at the same time benefiting all government employees with better service delivery with regard to human resources. As the minister pointed out, we are in the process of this transition. It will be fully implemented by April 1. We are looking forward to hearing some feedback from the employees about this.

We are going in the right direction. We have made some decisions that are better for everybody: the employees, government, and the public as well. Ultimately, as we provide programs and services to the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador, we need to have our employees working with maximum effort. We need to have our employees happy and safe in their own work environment. We need our employees to understand that we are thinking of them as an employer.

We will transition in the short term. We will make the Human Resource Secretariat that one, encompassing model we are looking at for best world-class business practices when it comes to human resources management. Again, we will continue on that road to making things better for everybody. I believe there is more work to be done in this area and that will occur over time. I am sure that there is research that has been done and there are best practices out there that our government is looking at internally, and I know that for a fact it is happening. That will be looked at and introduced sometime in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that this is indeed exactly what it is. It is a piece of housekeeping legislation. It is really important to the employees who are affected by this. It is all about our government doing the right thing for the right reasons, to provide good governance for the people of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the members opposite speak to this bill. On the one hand it said that it is simply housekeeping, but I am not willing to accept this on its face right now that it simply is housekeeping.

When the last member spoke he said that government intends to consult with all the people who are affected. I would much prefer that when you are introducing legislation, that you consult with the people first and then prepare the legislation. It looks like only a few simple words which seem to put into place what looks like reasonable changes, maybe necessary changes; however, there are few areas that are so subject to controversy as labour relations.

The labour relations area, whether it is public service, collective bargaining, or whether it is any other form of collective bargaining, there is always the opportunity where people might think something is being taken away from them. There is always the issue of unintended consequences. We passed this bill because we thought this is what was going to happen. In fact, not only did this happen, a whole range of other situations took place. Then people reviewed the legislation and said yes, you can do this under the act, or no you cannot do this under the act any more.

The thing that we need to strive for in this Province is that, for certain, we have harmony in labour relations. If we do not have harmony in labour relations, not only do we lose productivity and people's workplace becomes more threatened and more contentious, we simply have people's rights not being respected.

Many people might be willing to accept change if they had input into the change, if they understood what the change was being made and if they understood that the change was necessary. When I look at the list of potential public employees who could be affected by this change, I see a whole range of them and all of their contracts have expired – the ones that I am looking at: the Association of Allied Health Professionals expired June 30, 2012; the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, June 30, 2012. Then, we have a whole range of bargaining units represented by CUPE. There are certainly too many to read all of them, but we have everything from Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission workers, group homes, transition homes, and ushers. They cover Government House, hospital support, Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, Provincial Information and Library Resources Board, and school boards. Their contracts have all expired.

Under NAPE, we have a whole range of employees also whose contracts have expired on March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 and August 31, 2012. If they were to believe that we were going to attempt to implement a change at a time when we are involved in collective bargaining with them for a new agreement, it might look like the employer – in this case the employer is the government. The government that is representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador certainly would want to deal with people fairly and would also want people to understand that they were being dealt with fairly.

Unions such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, one contract expired June 30, 2012, another August 31, 2012. Then there is even the RNC; their contract expired June 30, 2012.

I would certainly like to have consultation and input from the representatives of these individuals, these unions, because labour relations is such a specialized area that the people who actually work in labour relations – some are lawyers, but many of them are not – have accumulated a whole wealth of knowledge over sometimes twenty or thirty or forty years of negotiations and collective bargaining. Clearly, I would like to hear from these, either by interview privately, or maybe we will work through some of these what-ifs as this bill progresses.

On the surface, it looks like it is a simple change called housekeeping, more or less; however, I am always very wary of what looks like a very simple change and then people come back in a few weeks or a few months, or however long, and say: I cannot believe that you voted for this bill, look what it is doing to us.

In fact, I would prefer very much to have an opportunity to review the impact and the consequences, intended and unintended, of all the public service employees who will be affected by this legislation. If they have no strong concerns or issues with it, then likely it should go through. If they have strong concerns or issues, then maybe it should be open for more debate or maybe not be supported.

In the labour movement, this country has evolved over a long time with the labour movement. We still have people who are very hostile to the rights of workers. We still have some people who think a union should prevail all of the time. The comfort zone, I would say, for the Official Opposition, for my party, is that we are somewhere in the middle. We believe workers have as much a right to organize into unions as shareholders have the right to organize into corporations.

You have two strong powers in this case, government and on the other hand employees, but most of us live in the rest of the world. Most of us are involved in either small businesses or are hourly workers who are not parts of unions. Sometimes in the conflict between strong unions and strong employers the rights and concerns of the ordinary person are not always paramount. Then we end up with labour disputes, such as we have at the airport right now. Most of the rest of us have to go on about our daily lives. While we have sympathy for one side or the other, we do not really want to be too fully caught up in the consequences of whatever the battle happens to be.

If there is clarity and if all sides know exactly what is being proposed and they have had an opportunity for discussion and debate, then they are more likely to be satisfied with outcomes. In going through a discussion and debate on various issues, there is the opportunity for compromise. Quite often something is proposed, somebody mistakes the intent of the proposal. Maybe it could have been made a whole lot better with minor changes. Maybe it could have been made a little bit better for some people who are going to be disadvantaged.

I am looking forward to what this actually means to our employees, the public employees who are affected by this. Clearly, we will have a little more to say on this at a later date. I am not willing to say I would want to support it or oppose it at this point. Information wise we are probably somewhere akin to where we are with Muskrat Falls. We simply do not have enough objective information from all the parties.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will have more to say on this bill as debate progresses.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to get an opportunity to speak to this bill. We closed our session last spring with this bill still on the books. I think it is important that it is now coming in for a second reading and for a full discussion.

Again, as has been said by others, I will reiterate that on the surface this looks like a good bill. On the surface it looks like we are talking about protection of workers' rights and protection of their benefits. I can fully understand what the minister was saying when he talked about the fact that government needs to have freedom with movement of workers from divisions from departments and moving into very different situations; sometimes moving into maybe working for Executive Council, having worked in a department before that.

There is no doubt that people who work in our public service sector and who work in our departments in the agencies of government develop quite a bit of expertise. Their knowledge is not just the knowledge of the content of the department, but they also come to understand how government operates. They develop a sense that somebody just coming in off the street does not have with regard to how government operates.

I can understand government – no matter who the government is – wanting to have freedom with regard to the movement of workers from a department into an agency. For example, such as the Office of the Chief Information Officer or the Human Resource Secretariat, Executive Council, to be able to move around and have their expertise used in different ways inside of government. I think it is very important.

It is also important that workers themselves feel secure if that is going to happen. If they get asked to make a move I think they need to have a sense of security with regard to their status inside of government. On the surface it looks like this bill is getting at the whole issue of making sure that they do feel secure, that they do feel things are not going to be worse for them because of this move, but that they will not have lost anything. I would like a bit more detail from the minister with regard to that. I, too, would like to know if this change is a change that has come to meet government's needs, or has it come to meet the workers' needs, and have the bargaining units of workers who would fit into these categories, have those bargaining units been involved in the discussion that brings us to the bill that is here on the floor of the House today.

I would hope that they have been engaged and I would like to hear the minister tell us about that process, whether or not they have been engaged. It is extremely important that we know that the change that is being suggested is a change that has come from good faith bargaining, good faith discussion between government and the workers. I am not saying it has not. I just would like to have further clarification about that process. Maybe the minister spoke to it; I actually had to step out for a few minutes to deal with my other duties as a House Leader. I did miss a few minutes of the minister's statement, so he may have given the information I am asking for. If he has and I have not heard it, I am sure he would not mind repeating it when we get into Committee or when he responds to us here on the floor.

It is extremely important that government makes sure that it always has good faith with the people who are working in the public service sector. They need to know that they are valued. They need to know that their knowledge and their experience are valued. I hope that they have been involved in this bill so that we can be assured that in actual fact, that is what this bill is about; I see the bill making sure, for example, that somebody from the bargaining unit does not lose their place when it comes to seniority in that bargaining unit, so that if they move back into the bargaining unit, they have not lost anything in their status in that bargaining unit because of having been outside of it for a number of years. I would like that spelled out for me as clearly as that by the minister because it seems to me that is one of the things that this is getting at.

Certainly, right now, where we are at a moment where negotiations are going on between the government and the various bargaining units in the public service sector, I think we will want to make sure that a piece of legislation that we are passing here in the House now is a piece of legislation that does recognize the rights of the workers who are in the public service sector, that piece of legislation does do something to make sure that they feel secure in their position in the public service sector, and that it is a bill that certainly ensures anything they have gained in the public service sector will be maintained if they get shuffled around.

I think the worst thing for a worker to feel is that they are being shuffled around. I would like to think that the bill is aimed at making sure that kind of feeling would not be there for a worker, that they would know that they were being respected, and that the reason they were being asked and given the opportunity to move somewhere else inside of the public service sector is because their knowledge and their experience is valued. Therefore, this bill is being put in place to make sure that is ensured.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to hear further clarification from the minister with regard to the involvement of the bargaining units in the discussion around this bill. If I know that support is there, then that would ensure that I would vote for the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say first of all it is a pleasure to get back into the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, my pleasure to stand here this afternoon and speak to Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. As has been said, if you look at the bill itself and the actual amendment, the amendment in itself is not a large amendment in terms of its size and so on. In terms of what it helps us do, in terms of the bigger picture for human resources in the public service, I think it is a very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at human resources in other industries – and certainly I, like the Member for St. John's West, can share in some of the comments that he made coming from private industry, but I also worked in the public sector as well. In all of those industries, I think it is pretty standard practice to see one dedicated human resources department to deal with all employee affairs. When we think about human resources – and I have worked in the human resource department in the health and safety field – you see many different programs come under that. You have your disability programs, training employee development, payroll and benefits, occupational health and safety, wellness programs, violence prevention, career counselling and advancement, employee orientations, and so on. Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, when you look at many industries, as I said, it is standard to have all of those facets of human resources fall under the one umbrella.

Really, Mr. Speaker, what we are attempting to do here is just that, for our public service employees to have all of the human resources functions. Currently there are a number of them under the Human Resource Secretariat, but there are some others, I know, in the Department of Finance and other departments where there are HR functions, Mr. Speaker, and we want to bring them all under the one human resources umbrella. The whole purpose of that is to provide an enhanced service for employees.

Not only is it going to be an enhanced service for employees, Mr. Speaker, it is also going to be a consistent service for employees, because, of course, one of the things that you have when you talk about any group of employees – we certainly have a large group in the public sector – I think it is important that you have fairness and you have consistency. I think sometimes it is difficult to have that consistency when you have a number of various HR departments or mini departments or divisions, whatever you want to call it; in various departments, they are treating issues in a different way.

When it comes to issues around the allocation of employee benefits, when it comes to issues around how a collective agreement or a particular clause in a collective agreement maybe interpreted, issues around leave requests, all those types of things, I think the danger you run into when you have various HR divisions or offices in all departments is that perhaps you lose that consistency. You may see one particular HR person in one department treating a situation one way, when you have an employee in another department with a very similar if not the exact same situation has been treated in a different way. When you have that, what you lose is fairness. I think one great advantage that we are going to see of putting it all together is that we are going to have consistency and fairness for all of our employees.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, we have a lot of great employees here in the public service. They are providing a valuable service. We certainly respect the work that those men and women do for us day in and day out. This really is all about trying to enhance the service to them, to our employees. Through bringing this all together, not only does it provide, as I said, that fairness and that consistency, it also provides an opportunity for us to enhance programs.

I think somebody may have mentioned opportunities in terms of introducing IT, as an example, whereby maybe we could have some sort of a system on-line where employees could go in and they could get their payroll information, their stubs, maybe be able to go in and determine how much leave that they have at any given time and all those types of things, have access to policies and procedures that are going to be current, up to date, are going to be standard, and are going to be consistent with everybody else.

I think, certainly, from the perspective of the union, it may even actually help them to some degree. Now, instead of the union rep perhaps dealing with various HR managers or whatever they may be called, whatever their job description may be in the various departments, now they can go to one central location dealing with that same HR group on all issues.

So, I think from that perspective, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly going to enhance the process; it is going to enhance things for employees, which is really the ultimate goal here. I think it is going to streamline things. I actually think it is going to work better for the union as well, in terms of resolving any grievance or disputes that may occur from time to time. I think it is going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, this is certainly something that we see throughout all industries, very standard. So that is the purpose of doing it, and I think it is a great thing that we are doing here, but I think the other important piece – and this is where this legislative amendment comes in to play – is that in doing this, we realize that we are going to have to move some people around, as has been said. A number of these people are currently in bargain unit positions, so they have full rights under their collective agreements through their union and so on. Mr. Speaker, in moving them under Executive Council, normally, as has been said as well, Executive Council positions are non-bargaining units; in other words, they are not unionized, and there are a number of reasons why that is the case.

It is my understanding that really, there was no absolute requirement on our part to even put this amendment in place. We could have simply taken these employees and moved them over to Executive Council, but it was really the willingness of the department, the willingness of the government to realize the importance of making sure people are treated fairly, treated equitably, and that their rights are maintained. That is why we are putting this amendment forward, to ensure that as these people transition into the Human Resources Secretariat, they will maintain their union status, so that they will maintain all the rights that they currently have today under their collective agreement, that they can receive representation from NAPE or whatever their actual union is and have access to all of the union programs, that all of their benefits remain in tact and so on.

I think that is really very important, Mr. Speaker, that we do that because, as I said, it is all about protecting the employees that we have, respecting the work they do, and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks when we are making these changes. Even though they are important changes, it is about protecting people.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard it raised here, the issue of consultation, and I am sure the minister will certainly speak to it when he gets up again, but it is certainly my understanding that the union indeed were consulted on these changes. I am sure they were, but as I said I will defer that to the minister. As far as I know, they were definitely consulted on this. So this is certainly not going to be any big surprise to them.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get too repetitive here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are.

MR. LANE: I know I already am.

We have had a number of speakers on this, but it is, in the meantime, very important that we do discuss this because, again, it is such important legislation to our workers, to our employees – employees that we value greatly.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, just to reiterate, certainly in many industries throughout the Province, throughout the country, throughout the world for that matter, you see the situation where you have dedicated human resource departments. This is certainly nothing new, Mr. Speaker. This is why we are putting this in place, like I said, to streamline it, to make things better for our employees so we can offer new programs, enhanced programs and so on. I think that by making this move it is going to bring us closer to that direction, in terms of putting us in a place where we can offer the best HR programs available to all of our employees.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, as we make that transition, we can never forget the valuable assets that we have in our employees. We can never work too hard to ensure that their rights are protected, and that is exactly what this legislation is all about doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand here and have a few comments concerning Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Mr. Speaker, being a former public service employee for twenty-five years, I thought it would be appropriate today to stand here and just speak from that perspective. My colleagues today spoke from their perspective of being in the private sector. I will speak from a perspective of being in the public sector for the last twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, any time there was a question about transfers or job transfers within government to normally non-bargaining positions if it was transferred to the Executive Council, which this is, under normal circumstances the government would not have to continue to protect the union rights. I am very proud that we are going to protect the union rights and we are going to transfer our public employees in. They will be able to continue to have full union protection.

Mr. Speaker, while I was there, every time something came up like this it was always a concern. Will I continue to have my union rights? How many times did I hear it over the years: Will this affect my status within the union? Many of these employees, Mr. Speaker, I would suspect have contributed many years to the public service and any time they hear about getting transferred into a traditional non-bargaining unit I think that would be a great fear of theirs.

I also heard a comment from the Leader of the Third Party. It is my understanding in listening to the minister's opening remarks that the union was consulted, there was consultation between government and the union, and there has been a Memorandum of Understanding already put in place for these employees. I think that is very important. This is not something that has been forced. This is something that has been done under consultation by government and the unions, and a Memorandum of Understanding is in place.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we have heard it many times this afternoon and I will not belabour the point, is clearly a piece of housekeeping legislation. As a government, we do respect our employees and we do want to make sure they are happy employees. By respecting their union rights in this transferring to the Human Resource Secretariat will ensure that happens.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said here many times this afternoon the reasons for this, but basically transferring the employees in the Human Resource Secretariat creates one integrated human resource function. It provides one focused entity. I have been through twenty-five years of it and we have had HR in all of our departments at times. We have HR shared with a number of divisions at times. It is funny. You talk about a particular situation, Mr. Speaker, and I get one answer. I talk to a friend or colleague who is being represented by another division and they are getting another answer, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes that leads to frustration and confusion and whatever you may.

If we have just one HR entity, Mr. Speaker, something should happen, and we hope these are the things that will be achieved. Number one, Mr. Speaker, we hope the efficiency in our HR resource will be improved and that when an employee goes to seek HR advice, that it will be quicker, a shorter waiting time, more efficient, easier to access. The other thing that should happen, Mr. Speaker, is the consistency in the response that I referred to a few minutes ago.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it was not uncommon, we could ask the same question at periods of time. I could ask my human resource people and a friend of mine who has a different human resource, we could ask the exact same question and get, at times, totally different answers. By having one HR entity, Mr. Speaker, we would hope the consistency of responses would be improved. As well, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that through this initiative and creating one Human Resource Secretariat, people would feel a little more at ease going to HR and getting the resources, and feeling more comfortable in dealing with their issues.

I think the minister also outlined a little earlier today, this is not the first time this has been done. In 2005, Mr. Speaker, when they created the OCIO, I believe, the Office of the Chief Information Office, I think this is pretty much the example that has been followed here. In 2005, when we created the Office of the Chief Information Officer, this similar occurrence occurred. Bargaining unit employees were transferred in, and this same type of agreement was done with the unions.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as well, it has been brought up here today that this was an employer initiative request. We initiated this with the unions. The conversation occurred, there has been agreement, and there has been consultation. Mr. Speaker, the thing that comes out of this, I think, that we all must remember is that the bargaining union employees' rights have been protected. They still have full and total access to their bargaining unit rights that they had prior to going into the Human Resource Secretariat. I think that is a reasonable thing to expect.

I know, Mr. Speaker, in my former role, that if I was doing something like this and I was being asked, I would want to ensure that my bargaining union rights were protected. That is the case, as I understand it, with this piece of legislation. I think, as well, it is reasonable. It is reasonable and it is fair, and I think that is very important. Employees want to be treated fairly. In this case I believe our bargaining unit employees have been treated fairly, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important that we continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, as well, as a former unionized employee, I think it is also important that when we do get these opportunities and we get transferred into a Executive Council where traditionally there are no non-bargaining unit positions, the fact that I still hold my union rights – and I will use the word my union rights, I will speak from the past. I think that is very important, because it also allows me access and opportunities to jobs elsewhere in the public service.

Mr. Speaker, overall, this piece of legislation is very fair. I do not think there is a whole lot of disagreement from my colleagues opposite. They did have some questions. I think we have responded to their questions.

Mr. Speaker, without any further ado, I will sit down. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. The Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour my comments on this bill because most of the comments have been made by other members. The bill that has been introduced by the minister I believe is good legislation based on the comments made by the minister. On the surface, it certainly appears to be good legislation. It will provide protection to employees and protection that those employees should have.

I will say that I believe there are still managers working within the public service who currently are not protected. As an example, the staff of the government offices, the staff of the Opposition, and the staff of the Third Party offices have no protection. They have no government service pension benefits available to them, and once they leave the government service are not able to carry with them their health and dental benefits. This is something that I think the minister should look at. I know I have spoken with the minister's staff on this previously. I think it is something we should look at, providing protection for these individuals as well.

On this particular piece of legislation, I do support it and I will be voting in favour of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. CROSS: North.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly great to be back. I will echo comments from the Member for Mount Pearl South that it is a great place to be. I am excited and I am going to enjoy the session as we go through. I enjoyed last session under a different Clerk, so I would just like to welcome the Clerk officially, from this district at least, to the House of Assembly. I notice the fairer sex at the Table in the middle. It is a great movement in this House to have so many around. I would like to welcome her. I know I felt welcomed by everyone when I came here at first.

I also thank the minister, but before I get to thanking the minster for the privilege to speak, last session, last spring, probably became known as the Twitter session. I thought we had a tweeter box here earlier today, but it seems like the problem has been rectified and fixed. There were a lot of tweets here earlier this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to speak to the bill, please.

MR. CROSS: (Inaudible).

In the review that this government does, and any organization these days, when you review your HR process and strategies, when you notice as we have noticed that all of these people in all of the HR were scattered all over the various departments of the government, it did interfere with the direct vision of how this government was proceeding. I am not talking about the government sitting here, but the actual bureaucracy of our government and a lack of clear vision there. I will give two or three personal examples over a few years of how I was affected by this type of situation in a few moments.

When you have the ability to combine into one office your core human resources, then it is a step forward for your organization. You get, as we have said, the consistent delivery of services and management of the resources. We all know we have capable and hardworking employees in our organization. When you unify the concept that they are working together as a unified force, you do benefit from that.

Workers in HR are usually non-bargaining unit employees, but in this case when this Human Resource Secretariat is combined and when the employees move into these positions, they are retaining their bargaining unit status. They will be able to keep that status if they change into another job in that same department that is still held by a bargaining unit status person. In this case, the union rights are being protected. It is a balance between the two.

This HR division is going to integrate all functions of employees' needs. It will be a one-stop shop for all of the processes that are needed by employees: payroll and processing, time and attendance as the minister said, pensions and counselling. You get timely answers to queries on pensions.

I know as an employee of the public service in my former life, I would often write letters and not get clear answers as to answers regarding pensions and benefits, and amount to expect. It was also not a timely answer that would come back because a lot of this information was held in different locations. Now that it is in one location and a consistent group of employees offering the information, then there is probably less room for error.

I also said that these people would keep their union status. As the Member for Mount Pearl South said, there is consultation with the union on this and there is an MOU that has been signed by NAPE at this point.

A couple of quick examples from my history that would help explain this or break this down for our voters or our electorate so they can probably understand this – my very first job in public service was here in the Confederation Building. I worked here for six months as a summer replacement. As I entered into the teaching profession, after fifteen or twenty years I started to inquire as to the service that I had for these six months, if it was any benefit to me.

When I was writing to check it out, because it was in a different department and because of all the peculiarities about it, I was lost. Lost in the sense that they could not find me, or a record of me, or the six months that I had served. I had to keep connecting until after several years – and it took several years to get the answer – finally the research was done by the employees and they came up with the answer and I found my six months and I received the benefit.

In this case, employees are not going to need – when they are going to the HR Secretariat, the people there are the trained people. They have specific training in that area and they will be able to answer these questions timely, efficiently. As our minister said earlier, there is also going to be a Human Resource Management System whereby all of this data, all of this documentation, is going to be in one location. We are going to be quite efficient in how we deliver to our employees.

Also in the world of education, over many years and administration, the HR divisions created in many of our organizations and in many of our institutions in education made for a much better and more effective organization; the time when the best person gets the job. It is always very important that these processes are followed through; in this case, by having it all in one house helps create this to be a very effective way, especially for the hiring procedures for our employees.

This overall, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is a balance. It is a balancing act offering, again, the best of both worlds to our employees in the Human Resource Secretariat, and for that reason, good compromise and good benefits for everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Your district – I have forgotten.

MS JONES: Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: How could you forget? I am devastated.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am the proud MHA for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair and hopefully I will get a little memo or something to get it out there so people know what district it is I represent in the House of Assembly.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to stand today to speak to Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. This particular act speaks to how we do collective bargaining in the Province, how bargaining units mostly are comprised, who are members of what units. This is a case where government is actually changing a process from the public services to human resource services under the act and how they are grouping employees under that particular act.

Now as we know, there are all different collective bargaining units that represent government employees. Those employees, Mr. Speaker, could be a part of NAPE or they could be a part of another union and therefore, right now, depending on the job that they are in, could be placed into this new bargaining unit which would be the human resource sector.

Basically, what the act does is it indicates that even those who are currently becoming employees of a group that is represented by that sector, if they are coming from NAPE or they are coming from another bargaining unit, they will maintain their status in those bargaining units until such time that the employee would be retired, the position becomes filled with someone new, and then they would fall in as part of the new collective bargaining unit.

We do not have a problem with that, but as my colleague for St. Barbe outlined when he spoke, we just want to make sure that the workers who are involved, the fifty-one workers, have been consulted, that the unions involved have been consulted, and that they do agree and have given consent for this particular practice and process to occur.

The minister has just outlined that there is an MOU that has been signed with them, so that would constitute agreement.

Mr. Speaker, any time that you are dealing with bargaining units in the Province, you are really dealing with people who make this Province run from a public sector perspective. In this Province, we have any number of bargaining units. In fact, today we have twenty such bargaining units that have contracts that have expired. Some expired in June. We have others that will expire over the course of the year, or have expired over the course of the year, I should say.

I think it is twenty in all and they include everyone from the Nurses' Union, the Teachers' Association, and Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, which includes air services, the College of the North Atlantic, health professionals, hospital support, lab and x-ray; all of these groups are a part of NAPE.

Then, of course, there is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents the people who are hospital support workers, the Liquor Corporation, the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board, school boards, Workplace Health and Safety and Compensation Commission, group homes, transition houses, and the ushers; all of these people are represented under the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Right now, government is probably at the table negotiating with all ten of these groups that I have just outlined, which have contracts that are pending right now or expired, and they are negotiating with them.

Mr. Speaker, any time that we are dealing with public employees, there are always a lot of questions that arise, especially in times of bargaining. We have seen it in this Province where there has been bargaining practices that have gone very fairly for both sides, but we have also seen bargaining practices that have not been fair, not been fair to the unions in many cases.

We do not have to go back too far, Mr. Speaker, because I listened to the Member for St. John's West when he spoke. He talked about, we have to ensure that our employees are happy and safe. We have to let them know we are thinking of them as an employer. Well, I am sure the public service in this Province knows you are thinking of them as an employer because you legislated them back to work in the last round of collective bargaining. You did not even reach an agreement with them. You came into the House of Assembly and you forced them back on the job. That is how much you were thinking about them.

That is the kind of collective bargaining practices we have seen in this Province that have been very unfair to workers, Mr. Speaker. We have also seen contract agreements imposed. So while you were thinking about them you were also thinking about how you were going to strip contracts and how you were going to take benefits out as part of that collective bargaining process. Not unlike, I must say to the Member of St. John's West, to what is happening today. Maybe he is not aware. Maybe he is not aware of the agreements and the proposals that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, has on the table for collective bargaining workers in our Province today. Contract stripping is exactly what it is.

Go down to the NLTA and ask the teachers today in this Province what is happening. Teachers are finding out, Mr. Speaker. They are getting a rude awakening. They are getting a shovel in the side of the head from this government in terms of where their bargaining rights are right now.

I tell the Member for St. John's West, while you are thinking of the public service workers in this Province, think of how it is going to affect their families when they start losing money out of their pocket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Think about how it is going to affect them, Mr. Speaker, when these bargaining practices –

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize my colleague is enthusiastic. It is the first day back and we all actively want to get into the debate, but I fail to see the point of discussion to the Human Resource Secretariat, which is a very narrow focus of this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to speak to the bill.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the diversion.

It reminds me of when I used to go to school, Mr. Speaker. The first day of school in September I was always more excited than I was as I got further into the months. It is kind of like the House of Assembly, the first day back you have all this enthusiasm. Anyway, check in, in three weeks, and I will let you know how it is going.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the workers in this Province are very important to how things work in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are a critical part of all public services that we provide to people in our Province. It is always important that they be bargained with in good faith. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, there have to be rules. There have to be regulations. There has to be legislation that governs that practice. That is what we are dealing with today. We are dealing with how bargaining processes take place. We are dealing with who becomes a member, who is a part of a bargaining unit in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I agree we need to ensure that employees are happy and they are content in the units that they are in. We also have to ensure they get fair and full benefits for the work they do, and that they are appreciated for the work they do. One of the ways of doing this, Mr. Speaker, is to have good, above board collective bargaining, is to have progressive, not regressive bargaining. We would encourage the government to certainly look at doing that and not create a template of heavy-handed bargaining tactics in this Province. I think we have had enough of seeing workers legislated and not necessarily bargained with in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a problem in supporting the legislation that is there, however, we would take it a step further. We would tell the government you need to make sure that when we bring in regulations and when we recognize that there are bargaining units, when we recognize that public service workers have a process by which they deal with their employer, by which they achieve benefits as a part of their job, whether that is insurance programs like the minister talked about, group insurance programs – whereas a few years ago we were part of Blue Cross, then we flicked to Desjardins.

We were supposed to save money for the taxpayers of the Province. It would be interesting to see, though, if we saved any money. It is my understanding that we spent more. We spent more. We switched from Blue Cross, which was very much based in Atlantic Canada, to Desjardins, which was the monarch of the Quebec government, Mr. Speaker, or not the Quebec government but the Province of Quebec. We flicked out the Newfoundland Maritimes company and we brought in the Quebec company because we do not like Quebec, but anyway.

We went with the insurance program there. We did all that because we were going to save money. That group insurance program is a part of the benefit that accrues to workers who are part of these bargaining units, to public sector workers. Maybe one of these days we will find out if we saved money, spent more money, or where that is. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is just one thing it talks about.

The minister outlined that it talks about compensation and staffing, and those kinds of issues. That is important as well. People need to be compensated but there has to be a monitoring program as well from employers. I realized a short time ago, as part of the House of Assembly Management Commission, that there was actually one employee of the House of Assembly that has accumulated about a year's leave of overtime. I was absolutely blown away that there could be a public servant that could leave tomorrow and collect a full year of overtime salary.

So, I think that when we deal with compensation and staffing there has to be a fairness from employees and employers as well in how we balance that because if that workload was there – I am not questioning if it was or not, but if it was, then did we have to pay time-and-a-half, did we have to pay more for it, could we have got it done by someone else at a cheaper price, Mr. Speaker. Were we paying someone, for example, $30 an hour to do something that could have been done for $13 an hour?

So, I think there has to be fairness on both sides when you are dealing with bargaining. I do not think that the public would respond to well to knowing that there was a lot of employees within government who had accumulated a year of overtime leave or overtime salary.

So, there are things like that that goes on as well, and I am not saying that it is all on one side. I am pointing that out because I think that there has to be a process where employers have to be scrutinizing what happens and the work that is being done, how that work is being paid for and what is fair compensation for the work. So, it works on both sides. Compensation and staffing – that was one part of it.

So, there are a number of things which are taken into consideration here, which are included as a part of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Today, we are amending a small portion of that act, but certainly a very important act. Just to remind government in clueing up my comments, we have the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act in place in this Province for a reason, and it is there so that we can negotiate freely back and forth so that we can achieve agreements, we can achieve contracts that are fair to the people of the Province, fair to the workers, and fair to employers.

We would always prefer to see a collective agreement that is signed by all parties, as opposed to imposed legislation and imposed agreements which we feel is not in the best interests of government, nor is it in the best interests of workers in the long run. So, if you want to keep them happy and safe, I say to the Member for St. John's West, well, follow the Collective Bargaining Act, and stop legislating public servants back to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Assembly, and it is great to have a chance to speak to Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Unlike my colleague across the floor, I would like to actually talk about the bill. Because we have strayed a little bit from what it is we are here to talk about today, I would just like to remind hon. members what this bill is all about. It is a bill to amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, to do a couple of things: to provide that employees occupying bargaining unit positions at the time they were transferred to the Human Resource Secretariat, a division of Executive Council, continue, notwithstanding that transfer, to be bargaining unit employees. I will elaborate on that, Mr. Speaker, during my comments this afternoon.

This bill, these amendments to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act also provide that the status of those transferred employees as bargaining unit employees would continue during the period they continue to occupy those positions, or while they occupied positions previously held by other bargaining unit employees who had been transferred at the same time, provided that the position had not at any time after that transfer been held by a non-bargaining unit employee.

Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes, I will try to decipher some of that and explain to those watching and the members of this House why I think this is a very progressive piece of legislation.

There is no doubt, if you talk to anybody in our government, and contrary to the fear mongering that we heard a few moments ago from across the House, this is a government that recognizes how vital the public sector is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We also recognize that the people working in our public sector, Mr. Speaker, need training. They need sound human resource management policies and as a government we need to be very strategic about how we manage our human resources.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill, Bill 31, is yet another step in improving human resource practices within our government. In this day and age, particularly in a very competitive labour market, Mr. Speaker, we need our human resources processes to be responsive. We need our human resources processes to be efficient as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think most people recognize that we are the largest employer in the Province. We take pride in being a good employer and I think as a public sector employer we need to set a good example for employers of all sizes in every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador. That requires us to treat all workers with respect. I think this bill is actually very much reflective of our commitment to treating public sector workers with the utmost respect, the respect that they absolutely deserve.

My colleague, the Member for St. John's West, did a very good job this afternoon talking about the future of human resource management. I would like to touch on a couple of the points that he made as well. He talked about the importance of making services available to employees in any organization today, making them as user-friendly as possible for employees. I certainly support that, Mr. Speaker. That is really what our intent is in bringing in this piece of legislation.

He mentioned embracing technology and the importance of utilizing technology and leveraging technology to make our human resources practices within government even more efficient. He also referenced the value of having one point of contact if you are an employee, knowing exactly where to go for all inquiries related to your employment and to your future within an organization.

We need to have streamlined processes, we need efficient process, we need effective processes. We need structures in place within human resource management that are responsive to the needs of employees and, of course, the employer as well. We certainly need, particularly in an organization the size of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, incredible consistency when it comes to service delivery throughout our organization. That is what this effort is really all about.

The amendment to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act is actually going to protect the union membership of bargaining unit employees who are going to be transitioning to the new Human Resource Secretariat of Executive Council. I think this is good news for the employees. I think it is good news for employees throughout government to know that the Human Resource Secretariat is going to be another positive step forward for those who work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We created the Human Resource Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, to integrate human resource functions in the public service into one entity that is truly focused on HR throughout government. This transition to what will truly be an integrated Human Resource Secretariat is going to help us improve on our business processes. It is going to help us provide consistency in service delivery. It is going to simplify access to human resource services for employees.

The employees affected by this move, their rights have certainly been respected and protected, which I think shows a real commitment to our employees on the part of government. In addition to that, it is going to lead to much better service for employees throughout government, no matter what entity within government that you work with.

To give you a little bit more background on why this change is necessary, currently the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act precludes employees of Executive Council from being members of a bargaining unit. There are a couple of exceptions, Mr. Speaker, but generally this act we are amending today does define employees. Generally speaking, if you are employed by Executive Council, if you fall under Executive Council, then you are not a unionized employee, but there are a couple of exceptions; for instance, people who are employed in the establishment of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province. Another exception includes certain employees of the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the OCIO, who transferred, actually, from bargaining unit positions into the OCIO when it was created. There is certainly some precedent for what we are trying to accomplish here today through Bill 31.

We created the Office of the Chief Information Officer back in 2005. At that time, this act we are proposing to amend today was also amended to protect the bargaining unit status of unionized employees who were transitioning into the OCIO. The OCIO does exist within the structure of Executive Council. This amendment, the amendments proposed as part of Bill 31, extend that same protection to bargaining unit employees who will ultimately, as I have said, be transitioning to the Human Resource Secretariat of Executive Council.

We also think it is really important to acknowledge in this House, as some members have alluded to already this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that these employees are being moved into Executive Council because of a restructuring we as the employee have initiated. Of course, there may be some concerns. It is natural and understandable that employees could have concerns about union rights, about membership, about seniority, and other issues that affect the terms of their employment.

For that reason, we think the approach we are taking here, Mr. Speaker – which I hope all members of this House will support – is really reasonable, progressive, and a show of good faith as well. It is a positive way to protect the union membership of a large group of unionized employees who are going to make this transition into Executive Council. It also creates a real balance, Mr. Speaker, a balance between the employer's interests and of course the interests of employees as well.

I understand some of the questions that were coming from members of the Opposition, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, based on discussions I have had with the minister's officials and my colleagues on this side of the House, that this is good for labour relations in Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand there have been discussions with NAPE, extensive discussions, and an agreement was in fact reached in terms of protecting union membership of those employees who are affected by this move.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit more about the Human Resource Secretariat itself. In 2011, we reviewed the human resource service delivery model within the provincial government. A number of improvements were recommended to the organizational model for human resources within the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Like most reviews that we do, of course that has led to a series of changes in short order. We have acted on recommendations by creating the new Human Resource Secretariat within Executive Council. That is really, again, going to allow us to integrate and also focus on human resources services within the Province.

The new Secretariat is really going to improve processes on a number of fronts. It is going to make access easier for employees to access HR services. It is going to provide incredible consistency in terms of HR delivery service right across government. This is all about making improvements to our internal human resource structure within government and these improvements will provide HR services to our employees and improvements for our employees receiving HR services in many different forms.

It is important to note as well, as background information, that employees of the former Public Service Secretariat actually transferred to the new Human Resource Secretariat earlier this year. That change, Mr. Speaker, happened in March of this year.

Once the full transition is complete, which is going to take several months yet, the new Secretariat is going to include a number of other entities and functions within government. For instance, the Strategic Human Management Divisions are going to be incorporated into the new Human Resource Secretariat.

Presently, those divisions exist in multiple departments and they have traditionally reported to a number of assistant deputy ministers throughout government, but these Directors of Strategic Human Resource Management Divisions are now reporting to a new Assistant Deputy Minister of Client Services within our new Human Resource Secretariat.

The new Secretariat will also include a number of components that are presently within the Department of Finance that are really human resource functions. To just give you a couple of examples, to put it in perspective: payroll processing, tracking of time and attendance management within government, the administration of group insurance benefits for employees throughout government, pension counselling services for employees throughout government, and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker. I just give you those few examples to give you a sense of some of the functions that need to be integrated and better co-ordinated through our new Human Resource Secretariat.

We will also be integrating the strategic staffing function for the public service overall. Those employees will report to a new Deputy Minister of Compensation and Staffing within the Human Resource Secretariat. I think it will be good news for employees of the Province and for members of this House that there will be no job losses as part of this reorganization of our human resources services within government.

There are some other details related to this transition that are still being finalized – logistical details, operational details, and so on – and there is some work to be done in terms of transitioning employees and divisional budgets. So, that work is ongoing, and based on what I have learned about this process to date, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly encouraging to see how professional the approach has been in making sure that this is a smooth transition for all involved.

I know members across the House also wondered about consultation with employees. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, based on discussions with the minister and his officials that meetings have been held with employees that are going to be impacted, and during those meetings the changes that are being proposed were discussed.

We are certainly going to continue to communicate with our employees throughout the transition process to ensure that questions are answered, to ensure that everyone is in the loop in terms of the changes that are being made, and that folks have confidence that we are doing the right things for the right reasons. To give you a sense of how long all of this will take, in terms of the changes we are proposing through Bill 31, the full transition will be completed by April 1 of next year – April 1 of 2013.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know I only have a few minutes left, but just a few more comments in support of this important piece of legislation. I mentioned how important it is, in terms of the human resource management environment we operate in today that we make life as easy as possible for our employees, that we make sure that the services we are providing are efficient and user friendly and responsive, and the need for consistency is certainly great.

Mr. Speaker, this is all about fairness. It is about making sure that the employees affected by this reorganization within government are treated fairly and are treated with respect. I really feel we are doing the right thing in that regard. The past actions of this government, in terms of working collaboratively with public sector employees have certainly created a very positive labour environment.

Contrary to what the Opposition House Leader would have you believe, our relations with the various public sector unions in this Province are positive. She alludes to the fact that there are negotiations ongoing, and that is a normal course of the operation of government, and I know that the minister is quite actively involved in ensuring that those move as smoothly as possible. It is all about creating a climate that is respectful and that is collaborative to ensure the public sector employees in this Province know how committed we are to their future and to the future of this Province.

These changes we are making are also about providing better service to government employees. What we are doing is sensible and logical. As we saw in the case of the OCIO, there is certainly precedent for offering such provisions to employees affected by such a change. Essentially, what this boils down to is that we are protecting employees who will be assigned to this new Human Resource Secretariat of Executive Council. We are protecting their union membership for as long as they are in their current roles.

This is a friendly initiative from unions' perspectives, I would hope. It protects union rights. It protects union membership and seniority for workers who are affected. It is also good news for all involved that there will not be any job losses as a result of what we are proposing here.

This is about fairness as well. Any change causes some uncertainty, stress, and anxiety. We can minimize all of that by being fully transparent, by engaging with employees, and by ensuring they are in the loop at every step of the way as we propose these changes and as we implement them. The theme of fairness and respect is one of the things I really appreciate about this bill we are bringing in today.

This new approach to managing human resource functions within government is leading edge. It is a positive step forward for government. It is going to ensure that our organizational structures related to HR are all under one roof, so to speak. That is going to lead to more effective and more efficient services for all employees within government. It is going to result in better service for all.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positive piece of legislation. It is good news for all employees of government, not only those who are affected by this change. For that reason, it has been a pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to speak to this bill.

I thank the Minister of Finance for bringing in such a positive piece of legislation. It just demonstrates the commitment of this government to the employees of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the public service of this Province. It is another positive step in creating a positive labour climate and positive labour relations within Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will conclude my comments and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today as well to stand and speak to Bill 31, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act amendment.

I do not have a lot of comments, but I do want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): Order, please!

I am having a little trouble hearing the speaker.

Thank you.

The Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you for that protection, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you stepping in.

Mr. Speaker, essentially, to sum it up, this bill is about a group of employees who are moving from a bargaining unit position to a non-bargaining-unit position. It is really about the minister and government taking the initiative to make the right decision, to align some of the human resource functions of government, but also, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we provide adequate and fair and appropriate protection for those employees who would be coming from a bargaining unit or a unionized position into a non-unionized position.

Mr. Speaker, what it really means, for those who are listening to the debate at home, is the human resource function that we are talking about here under this act, which is currently comprised of a lot of members who are in unionized positions and afforded the protections that go with that, those positions are now going to be moved into the Human Resource Secretariat under the arm of what is called Executive Council.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are not totally aware of government and how government functions – and I am sure that the average person on the street is probably not – Executive Council is a non-unionized arm of government which deals with a lot of different kinds of matters than the line departments do. You have a communication branch, for example, and you have the legislative branch, and you have a human resource branch, and all of these functions tend to overlap government departments, Mr. Speaker. They do not apply to individual departments, but their support functions at the executive level are offered to all government departments throughout government.

What we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is a decision where government is looking at, through the minister, realigning some of these functions in a centralized area. By way of a background, perhaps for those who are listening to the debate, back in 2011 there was a review initiated by government, because we saw the need, Mr. Speaker, as we do from time to time in government, as you would see in the business world. From time to time, there is a need to reflect upon the direction that you are taking; there is a time to reflect upon the strategies that you are employing and the priorities that you have identified.

Every now and then, Mr. Speaker, you align yourself. You align your priorities and you align your modes of operation with the directions of your organization, or in this case of course we are talking about government. I am sure many people would recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the human resource function in society – not just in government, not just in business, but the human resource function in society has changed significantly over the past ten years or so.

Primarily, Mr. Speaker, what most organizations are trying to move towards is providing better opportunities and supports for those employees who work on our behalf and on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador every single day to provide human resource support functions to employees throughout government, and to provide better opportunities for employees in government to receive the supports they need. That can be a whole range of functions, Mr. Speaker.

We have an arm of government that is responsible for the recruitment and training, selection and training of employees, Mr. Speaker. We have people who identify job functions in various departments. They write job ads and they identify the duties of the position. They move forward and they carry out the recruitment process.

We have employees in the human resource function, Mr. Speaker, who are responsible for training and development. Whether you are in the teaching profession, as I used to be, or whether you are in the medical profession, or whether you work in government, everybody needs from time to time to have an opportunity to do some retraining and to upgrade their skills, or to avail of new technologies and new opportunities to make them better at their job. That also, Mr. Speaker, is a function that is carried out under the human resources initiative that we are talking about here.

It is all about aligning ourselves to ensure that our priorities, our goals, and our objectives are being supported in the best way possible. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there is a need to make some changes as we are talking about in this legislation, to pool all of that collective group together. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, the minister has recognized in this bill today that there are employees along the way who have the support and the protection and all of the comforts that some people enjoy by being in a union. There are people in that particular situation who are now going to be moving into Executive Council and will not enjoy those same kinds of comforts necessarily, because Executive Council is a non-unionized environment.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what a number of speakers have said here today already, is it provides protection and it provides support to those employees. In other words, government is saying to these employees, when you move from your current position in a line department or wherever you may be, once you move over into the Executive Council branch of government what we are saying in this bill today is we are being very proactive. We were proactive from the start when the minister initiated this discussion.

We are saying to these employees, none of this change will affect your security or your future with government. As long as you are here and until you retire or vacate your position, you will enjoy the same job security, the same benefits, the same working environment, if you will, other than perhaps the physical location. The same kind of work atmosphere you had before this change occurred, you will continue to enjoy. It is a grandfathering clause, Mr. Speaker. Now, as new positions are filled, of course, they will take on the new life of being a member of Executive Council and being non-unionized.

Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of the change being recommended here, I think it demonstrates that the minister is being very proactive, he is being very focused, and he is being very supportive. He is being proactive and focused because he has taken an opportunity to look at the functions of governments. He is realigning the human resources arm of government to make sure we are delivering the best possible services and the best possible supports to our employees – very proactive, Mr. Speaker, and very forward thinking.

At the same time, the minister has recognized by bringing this piece of legislation forward that we do not leave our employees behind. We do everything we can to protect them and make sure they are supported and looked out to along the way. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it shows great leadership on behalf of the minister in moving this bill forward. At the same time, it shows great compassion and support for the employees who are going to be affected.

I am pleased to arise and speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and certainly will be supporting it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand when I speak now –

MR. SPEAKER: You will close debate.

MR. MARSHALL: - it will close debate on second reading.

I want to thank hon. members for taking part in this debate. It is a very important piece of legislation in that it protects the union membership of those of our employees who have that membership now and, as has been said by many members here today, will be transitioning to the new Human Resource Secretariat which is in Executive Council.

The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act says that anyone in Executive Council cannot be a member of a bargaining unit. At least we are protecting these employees for as long as they hold their position, the ones who are transferring in. It will also continue to protect an employee who is transferring in at the same time who may take over that position.

The Leader of the NDP was out when I did indicate we did have an MOU with NAPE on this particular issue. There are a couple of other points I should just mention. This is an internal organization, so there are no job losses taking place here.

The logistical and operational details relating to the transition, such as transitioning of all employees and divisional budgets, are in the process of being finalized. We expect the full transition will be finished by April 1, 2013. Meetings have been held with impacted employees to discuss the changes, and I am advised we are continuing to communicate with employees throughout this transition process.

So, I thank all hon. members. I do not know if we are going into Committee now or tomorrow, but I will sit down now and close debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time.

When shall it be referred to the Committee of the Whole?

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Tom, you can go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: During the discussion in second reading there were a number of questions raised by some hon. members –

MR. SPEAKER: Minister, I am sorry, excuse me.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will consider Bill 31.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Did government consult with the Association of Allied Health Professionals on this bill? If so, with whom and what date?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I am not aware if we had consultations with the Association of Allied Health Professionals. I do not know if any of the employees being transferred, being transitioned into the Human Resource Secretariat would be members of the Association of Allied Health Professionals. They are coming from mainly the Department of Finance. They are represented by NAPE and we do have a memorandum of agreement signed with NAPE.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Did government consult with Canadian Merchant Service Guild on this bill? If so, with whom and on what date?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: I did not hear the name of the –

MR. BENNETT: Canadian Merchant Service Guild.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask speakers to wait to be recognized.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: The Canadian Merchant Service Guild.

I understand that they could be affected by this, Mr. Chair. In the course of the debate, government members took different positions as to who had been consulted and if you had been any consultations, so I would like to clarify it. One member said they would be consulted, one member said they had been consulted, and I am not satisfied to let this bill go through without being told if these union members have been consulted.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, the government programs office did a review of this legislation and made recommendations. Employees were not involved in the decisions, but they had been engaged during the transition processing. We did discuss this, as I said, with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, and we have a memorandum of agreement in place.

Through dialogue and discussion with senior management and executives throughout the process, most employees seem to be embracing the transition. Most employees believe this reorganization will lead to better human resource services for everyone. Like with any reorganization, employees may have had some concerns, but they are actively engaged and providing feedback. Government has been encouraging and will continue to encourage feedback from employees throughout the process.

Of any of the two unions that the hon. member mentioned, I am not aware of any of the employees being transitioned in would be from that union. My understanding is that they are all members of NAPE. If anybody has information otherwise I would like to hear it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, did government consult with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and if so, with whom and on what days?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I have to repeat the previous answers I have given here. We have an agreement with NAPE.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, the question was whether government had consulted with CUPE, not NAPE. I accept that government says it has consulted with NAPE and that it has an MOU in place with them; however, that is not CUPE. I would like clarification. Has CUPE been consulted on this and is there a memorandum of understanding with CUPE?

CHAIR: Should clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. ( Bill 31)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 31.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 31.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 31, carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again. Oh, I am very sorry about that – have directed him to report Bill 31 without amendment.

When shall the bill be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. KING: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I move that the House do now adjourn until tomorrow.

MS SHEA: Seconded by.

MR. KING: Seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is has been moved that the House do now adjourn.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adjourn?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.